Popular characters with ignored traits

[Devonix]

We all have characters that we love and that other people know and like but just don't know as much about. Well for some reason they latch onto those characters for sometimes just one single thing about them and ignore everything else.

For me its Superman and his intelligence. I have no idea where this came about. I mean if you go back and watch the old movies. You see that the real reason Lex Luthor worked as a great foil was because of their intellectual play against each other. Luthor is someone who can challenge the man of steel's intellect and his devices challenge his powers.

Supes is Smart. always has been but people are always talking about him as dumb muscle. WHY?



oh and Batman isn't a loner. He's got one of the largest extended families in comics period. Works with people all the time and isn't against taking help.

[Prime32]

DC Comics isn't known for its consistency, especially when you're including alternate continuities like TV series. Superman doesn't always have super-intelligence, and Batman often is a loner (Alfred doesn't count).

[industrious]

We all have characters that we love and that other people know and like but just don't know as much about. Well for some reason they latch onto those characters for sometimes just one single thing about them and ignore everything else.

For me its Superman and his intelligence. I have no idea where this came about. I mean if you go back and watch the old movies. You see that the real reason Lex Luthor worked as a great foil was because of their intellectual play against each other. Luthor is someone who can challenge the man of steel's intellect and his devices challenge his powers.

Supes is Smart. always has been but people are always talking about him as dumb muscle. WHY?

oh and Batman isn't a loner. He's got one of the largest extended families in comics period. Works with people all the time and isn't against taking help.

Sort of.

Superman is smart, yes. He's a very well-regarded journalist for a highly-regarded paper in his civilian life. He is above average intelligence. But compare him to Lex Luthor, or Bruce Wayne, or Ted Kord...he isn't on their level in terms of genius. He isn't dumb muscle against average people; quite the contrary. But against them, he simply can't compete in the purely intellectual realm.

As for Batman being a loner...he sort of is. He had a large extended family, true, but in recent years, he hasn't had the best of relationships with them. There is a reason why Grayson stopped being Robin way back when; he couldn't put up with Bruce. Sure the two have largely reconciled, but Wayne isn't the sort of person who forgives easily. Jason is...complicated, to say the least, and Tim's relationship is more idolizing than anything approaching equal, or even mentor-student (ditto Cass). Barbara and Bruce don't see eye to eye (or didn't pre-Reboot) because of the Wheelchair in the room, and Stephanie Brown really doesn't like him because of how he treated her throughout her tenure as a vigilante.

As for other heroes, remember that while Bruce is a member of the Justice League, he refuses to let other heroes work in Gotham City. Their trust in them has also been shown to be damaged due to the fact that Batman doesn't generally trust powered heroes; he has protocols written on how to defeat every League Member(Tower of Babel) and created the Brother Eye satellite "just in case." Bruce is really quite paranoid that way.

[Traab]

Here is a question ive always wondered about. At the time Barbara got paralyzed, wasnt batman already a part of the extended League? The reason why I ask is, in a world with mystical healers, purple rays, and advanced robotics/cybernetics, why the HELL didnt bruce ever pull a few strings for barbara to get her walking again? There was absolutely no reason for her to stay in the wheelchair other than authors pulling the "because we say so" card. You can claim he doesnt want to expose his connection to her, but he already has a well known one. Her dad is the police commisioner. It wouldnt be that unlikely, or suspicious for batman to offer her some help. Hell, Bruce is a philanthropist, and im sure he and gordon have met officially several times at social functions. Once again, no reason why wayne enterprises wouldnt make an offer to help his daughter walk again.

[Devonix]

Sort of.

Superman is smart, yes. He's a very well-regarded journalist for a highly-regarded paper in his civilian life. He is above average intelligence. But compare him to Lex Luthor, or Bruce Wayne, or Ted Kord...he isn't on their level in terms of genius. He isn't dumb muscle against average people; quite the contrary. But against them, he simply can't compete in the purely intellectual realm.

As for Batman being a loner...he sort of is. He had a large extended family, true, but in recent years, he hasn't had the best of relationships with them. There is a reason why Grayson stopped being Robin way back when; he couldn't put up with Bruce. Sure the two have largely reconciled, but Wayne isn't the sort of person who forgives easily. Jason is...complicated, to say the least, and Tim's relationship is more idolizing than anything approaching equal, or even mentor-student (ditto Cass). Barbara and Bruce don't see eye to eye (or didn't pre-Reboot) because of the Wheelchair in the room, and Stephanie Brown really doesn't like him because of how he treated her throughout her tenure as a vigilante.

As for other heroes, remember that while Bruce is a member of the Justice League, he refuses to let other heroes work in Gotham City. Their trust in them has also been shown to be damaged due to the fact that Batman doesn't generally trust powered heroes; he has protocols written on how to defeat every League Member(Tower of Babel) and created the Brother Eye satellite "just in case." Bruce is really quite paranoid that way.

Actually except for the current Reboot which is only because they've not gone into any storylines like that yet. I have never seen a comic portrayal in wich Superman has had less than genius level intellect. He's constantly portrayed as working on vaceens to diseases working on his robots and programming new ones. ect.

[Devonix]

Here is a question ive always wondered about. At the time Barbara got paralyzed, wasnt batman already a part of the extended League? The reason why I ask is, in a world with mystical healers, purple rays, and advanced robotics/cybernetics, why the HELL didnt bruce ever pull a few strings for barbara to get her walking again? There was absolutely no reason for her to stay in the wheelchair other than authors pulling the "because we say so" card. You can claim he doesnt want to expose his connection to her, but he already has a well known one. Her dad is the police commisioner. It wouldnt be that unlikely, or suspicious for batman to offer her some help. Hell, Bruce is a philanthropist, and im sure he and gordon have met officially several times at social functions. Once again, no reason why wayne enterprises wouldnt make an offer to help his daughter walk again.

Actually the whole staying in the wheelchair card was her idea. and as for revealing her to other super heroes. They already knew her in both civillian and superhero identities. She didn't want special treatment and would only use such miracle cures if they were available to everyone was her rationale.

[Prime32]

Sort of.

Superman is smart, yes. He's a very well-regarded journalist for a highly-regarded paper in his civilian life. He is above average intelligence. But compare him to Lex Luthor, or Bruce Wayne, or Ted Kord...he isn't on their level in terms of genius. He isn't dumb muscle against average people; quite the contrary. But against them, he simply can't compete in the purely intellectual realm.Usually his super-intelligence takes the form of learning things extremely quickly; Superman: Red Son has a scene where he becomes a world-class doctor after spending a minute or two in a library, for instance. He builds super-tech sometimes, but that's using the facilities of the Fortress of Solitude so it's not all him.


Batman doesn't generally trust powered heroes; he has protocols written on how to defeat every League Member(Tower of Babel) and created the Brother Eye satellite "just in case." Bruce is really quite paranoid that way.Well the Justice League did erase his memories that one time...

[Traab]

Actually the whole staying in the wheelchair card was her idea. and as for revealing her to other super heroes. They already knew her in both civillian and superhero identities. She didn't want special treatment and would only use such miracle cures if they were available to everyone was her rationale.

I meant that batman wouldnt risk exposing his connection to barbara gordon by openly helping her out. I admit to not having read the killing joke or any of the other stuff, so I dont know how aware her dad is/was of her night time activities, I just wanted to point out a few options as to how he could have done so without arousing suspicions.

Meh, i guess refusing to be healed because she thinks its unfair that not everyone else would be so lucky makes SOME sense. Not much though. Its along the lines of, "There are starving kids in ethiopia! I refuse to eat unless THEY get to eat as well!"

[Devonix]

I meant that batman wouldnt risk exposing his connection to barbara gordon by openly helping her out. I admit to not having read the killing joke or any of the other stuff, so I dont know how aware her dad is/was of her night time activities, I just wanted to point out a few options as to how he could have done so without arousing suspicions.

Meh, i guess refusing to be healed because she thinks its unfair that not everyone else would be so lucky makes SOME sense. Not much though. Its along the lines of, "There are starving kids in ethiopia! I refuse to eat unless THEY get to eat as well!"

You aren't the only person who thought that it was a stupid reason.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Moving away from inconsistent comic stories, a lot of people tend to forget that Sherlock Holmes is kind of a moron in every subject that doesn't relate directly to crime-fighting (admittedly, he fights really esoteric crimes), music, or drugs. People also tend to forget that Watson is not only a veteran and a medical doctor, but also just a generally better-rounded and more sociable person.

Hopefully, the movies have been doing something to correct this.

[Traab]

Moving away from inconsistent comic stories, a lot of people tend to forget that Sherlock Holmes is kind of a moron in every subject that doesn't relate directly to crime-fighting, music, or drugs. People also tend to forget that Watson is not only a veteran and a medical doctor, but also just a generally better-rounded and more sociable person.

Hopefully, the movies have been doing something to correct this.

He is a detective version of Dr House. Only I THINK he is slightly less intentionally *&^%*&%^&*$%ish towards those around him. But ill admit I havent read any sherlock in a LOT of years.

[Devonix]

Moving away from inconsistent comic stories, a lot of people tend to forget that Sherlock Holmes is kind of a moron in every subject that doesn't relate directly to crime-fighting (admittedly, he fights really esoteric crimes), music, or drugs. People also tend to forget that Watson is not only a veteran and a medical doctor, but also just a generally better-rounded and more sociable person.

Hopefully, the movies have been doing something to correct this. yeah I agree here Watson isn't the bumbling sidekick he's there for a reason.

[Saph]

Moving away from inconsistent comic stories, a lot of people tend to forget that Sherlock Holmes is kind of a moron in every subject that doesn't relate directly to crime-fighting (admittedly, he fights really esoteric crimes), music, or drugs. People also tend to forget that Watson is not only a veteran and a medical doctor, but also just a generally better-rounded and more sociable person.

Actually, it's inconsistent.

In the early Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes was presented as being focused on his profession to the point of being deliberately ignorant about everything else. If you read the later stories, though, you notice that Conan Doyle ended up quietly dropping that particular bit of characterisation - take a look at the Adventure of the Lion's Mane, where Holmes ends up solving the case based on his knowledge of an obscure species of jellyfish. :smalltongue:

So it's probably more accurate to say that the film/TV portrayals are based more on the later Sherlock Holmes stories than the earlier ones.

[kpenguin]

Indeed. One wonders why the Holmes of early stories, not knowledgeable or really interested enough about astronomy enough to know the Earth moves around the Sun, has read an astronomy book about something so esoteric as how an asteroid moves.

Though, I suppose the author of said book might have something to do with.

[Mx.Silver]

Actually, it's inconsistent.

In the early Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes was presented as being focused on his profession to the point of being deliberately ignorant about everything else. If you read the later stories, though, you notice that Conan Doyle ended up quietly dropping that particular bit of characterisation - take a look at the Adventure of the Lion's Mane, where Holmes ends up solving the case based on his knowledge of an obscure species of jellyfish.
Possibly not the best example there since that story took place several years after Holmes had retired from detective work and he had to do research during the story (which is I think the only one told from Holmes' perspective). Also, the Lion's Mane isn't that obscure a species - which made reading that story for the first incredibly frustrating due to the mystery being solved by it's title :smalltongue:

[Gnoman]

From what I can recall, Sherlock's deliberate ignorance began to fade somewhat after the Adler case in which he was soundly beaten. it's not too far fetched that he simply realized that the "relevant to my work" category should be made much broader than he originally thought was necessary.

[The Glyphstone]

yeah I agree here Watson isn't the bumbling sidekick he's there for a reason.

This is one of the reasons I really, really liked the new Holmes movies - they finally portrayed Watson the way he was originally, as a badass retired army veteran who could fight as well as or better than Holmes, not the comic relief.

[McStabbington]

I wouldn't say that the early Holmes has blinders of any substantial size. It's more that he gets really interested in very obscure stuff. For instance, one piece of deduction about a client's background in an early story (The Red-Headed League, IIRC) hinged on his knowledge of tribal tattoos in Southeast Asia, which led to the conclusion that the client in question had once been in the merchant marine. What changed over time was that in the early stories he was as astute as the next man in subjects he wasn't interested in, where in the later works he's pretty much a polymath who is also a world-class scholar on a multitude of fields. It's a bit of intellectual Flanderization at work.

One thing I've noted, since I've recently taken to watching all of the original Star Trek episodes and not merely the highlights, is how much tamer James Kirk is than he's always been mythologized as. Clearly he can put the moves on women, and he seems to have a lot of ex-girlfriends who are still quite fond of him, but really in Season One, he has maybe two of those fadeouts that old TV shows use to say "and then they went at it". Just for context, one of those involved a woman who was ultimately playing him just as much as he was playing her, and that is exactly one more fadeout than both Spock and Bones have had, two characters I can't recall ever being seen as ladies men (much to ladies' heartbreak in Spock's case, or so I've heard).

Really, if anything his reputation is a bit of a reversal of what actually happened. Namely, while Kirk doesn't really take advantage of it, it's a rare episode when the pretty Yeoman-of-the-week or the alien babe doesn't toss herself at him. I would say that he's got some kind of estrogen-enhancing ability, but it also works with robots who happened to be shaped like people. Clearly, there's something about the morphology of women that just makes them unable to resist the Kirk.

[NikitaDarkstar]

I wouldn't say that the early Holmes has blinders of any substantial size. It's more that he gets really interested in very obscure stuff. For instance, one piece of deduction about a client's background in an early story (The Red-Headed League, IIRC) hinged on his knowledge of tribal tattoos in Southeast Asia, which led to the conclusion that the client in question had once been in the merchant marine. What changed over time was that in the early stories he was as astute as the next man in subjects he wasn't interested in, where in the later works he's pretty much a polymath who is also a world-class scholar on a multitude of fields. It's a bit of intellectual Flanderization at work.

One thing I've noted, since I've recently taken to watching all of the original Star Trek episodes and not merely the highlights, is how much tamer James Kirk is than he's always been mythologized as. Clearly he can put the moves on women, and he seems to have a lot of ex-girlfriends who are still quite fond of him, but really in Season One, he has maybe two of those fadeouts that old TV shows use to say "and then they went at it". Just for context, one of those involved a woman who was ultimately playing him just as much as he was playing her, and that is exactly one more fadeout than both Spock and Bones have had, two characters I can't recall ever being seen as ladies men (much to ladies' heartbreak in Spock's case, or so I've heard).

Really, if anything his reputation is a bit of a reversal of what actually happened. Namely, while Kirk doesn't really take advantage of it, it's a rare episode when the pretty Yeoman-of-the-week or the alien babe doesn't toss herself at him. I would say that he's got some kind of estrogen-enhancing ability, but it also works with robots who happened to be shaped like people. Clearly, there's something about the morphology of women that just makes them unable to resist the Kirk.

Very true. Kirk as he is in the show is well, charismatic but doesn't really take that much advantage of it. I think the issue comes from him constantly getting his uniform torn and generally being put through "fan service" combined with the early fanzines playing on it.

Just as Scotty is often considered a mechanical genius, and while he is pretty darn good at what he does, keep in mind that in cannon he has said (I don't remember the movie or episode, but it was star trek cannon...) that much of the reason he's considered as such is because he asks for twice the amount of time it'd normally take. Then he knows that when they give him less than that he can do it much faster if he hurries a little. So really he's not as much of a genius as he is a manipulative guy who doesn't like sweating to much. :p

[Gnoman]

You're thinking of the TNG episode "Relics." It's actually sound engineering practice to pad your time estimates even in time-critical situations.

[Bastian Weaver]

People also tend to forget that Watson is not only a veteran and a medical doctor, but also just a generally better-rounded and more sociable person.

He's not. He ends up sharing the flat with Holmes just because he's a loner with nowhere to go.

[Gnoman]

Watson didn't share 221b Baker Street with Holmes because he was unsociable. He simply wanted good rooms at a cheap price, which he achieved by taking a roommate. He was a regular at a gentleman's club (note that I do not mean a "gentleman's club") married 1d4 times, and had far greater breadth of knowledge than Holmes did, at least early on, due to Holmes's deliberate ignorance.

[DiscipleofBob]

We all have characters that we love and that other people know and like but just don't know as much about. Well for some reason they latch onto those characters for sometimes just one single thing about them and ignore everything else.

For me its Superman and his intelligence. I have no idea where this came about. I mean if you go back and watch the old movies. You see that the real reason Lex Luthor worked as a great foil was because of their intellectual play against each other. Luthor is someone who can challenge the man of steel's intellect and his devices challenge his powers.

The greatest thing about comic book characters is just how open to interpretation they are. They are truly unique in fiction in that in any point in time you can just ignore certain aspects of a superhero or villain and go "Oh, that's just the writer screwing it up. That's not how Superman/Batman/etc. actually is." You can't do that with nearly any other medium. You may not like Harry Potter in the later books, but JK Rowling still gets that final say. There are many different interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, but you always have to defer to the original Doyle version.

Take Spider-Man and One More Day. While a canon story a the time, it was pretty much universally despised by fans, and the general outcry wasn't "Spider-Man! How could you do such a thing?" but "Why are the writers screwing up Spider-Man?" Comic book characters have evolved over the years, and now their traits are largely dependent on the fanbase's view and not the actual writers' works.

With Superman, I always looked to the animated series version. It's not that Superman is dumb, persay, but that he's not genius-level like many of the people around him. He tends to rush into combat situations instead of planning things out like, say, Batman. Now Superman has a good reason to rush in headlong: he's pretty sure he'll survive, and usually he has to rescue multiple civilians and can't afford to be a second late. But on the downside, he's predictable enough to fall into kryptonite-laden traps, and that's usually what gives him the most challenge. Contrast with previous comics that actually had him be a super-scientist as well with all of Krypton's knowledge. To me at least, that aspect of Superman is irrelavent and out-of-character for the Man of Steel. He shouldn't be a super-genius because he doesn't need to be. Why hack the security door open when he can just punch it down? It also makes him a much better foil for characters whose only real advantages against him are their intellect: like Luthor, Batman, and Brainiac.

With Batman, he has a large extended family, sure, but he's still very much a loner, largely because he has three personalities: the fake Bruce Wayne who's a charade put on for the media, the Batman who has to be intimidating in order to work, and the real Bruce Wayne, who is very much alone. Sure, he has people willing to be his family: **** Grayson, Oracle, Catwoman, multiple Justice League members, etcetera, but take the Batman Beyond version, where he's pushed everyone away in favor of "the mission" and ends up a bitter old lonely man because of it. It's a different kind of martyrdom, and it makes the sacrifice that Batman makes for Gotham and the world that much more powerful. Compare that to the Adam West "old chum" Batman which, while no less canon, leaves something to be desired plot-wise.

[Bastian Weaver]

Watson didn't share 221b Baker Street with Holmes because he was unsociable. He simply wanted good rooms at a cheap price, which he achieved by taking a roommate. He was a regular at a gentleman's club (note that I do not mean a "gentleman's club") married 1d4 times, and had far greater breadth of knowledge than Holmes did, at least early on, due to Holmes's deliberate ignorance.

Let me quote Sir Arthur on this:


I had neither kith nor kin in England, and was therefore as free as air -- or as free as an income of eleven shillings and sixpence a day will permit a man to be. Under such circumstances, I naturally gravitated to London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers and idlers of the Empire are irresistibly drained.

I suppose I'd better stop here before it turns into "Earlier Stories vs Later Stories" discussion, since Holmes stories really tend to vary a lot in things like that.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I suppose I'd better stop here before it turns into "Earlier Stories vs Later Stories" discussion, since Holmes stories really tend to vary a lot in things like that.

To me, this sounds like the general and all-too-common angst of being a recently discharged soldier (with the requisite self-deprecation of himself and the entire pensioned bachelor social class). He clearly manages to get over this in subsequent stories while Holmes pretty much remains a loner - save for Watson - by choice.

[TheEmerged]

Regarding Superman's intelligence, this was very inconsistently portrayed during the "Between Crises" era (1985 to New 52). Sometimes he was shown as being mentally deficient - not even knowing high school science/astronomy for example (like not knowing that when a star explodes, it's called a nova -- or that some stars turn into black holes instead of going nova). Other times, we have The Atom (a college professor) saying Superman is much smarter than he is in terms of raw intelligence.

My personal view is that he's the stereotypical "gifted but largely unapplied" level of intellect. The classic example is from "Superman Under a Green Sun", where at first he despairs of having lost his powers, then realizes "Hey wait a minute, my friend Batman does this without powers all the time." He then stops whining and saves the world with flowers and a giant insect. Hey, it was the Silver Age...

I believe the standard under New 52 is that he's at the level of a high-end college student but not used to having to think ahead all that far.

[NikitaDarkstar]

You're thinking of the TNG episode "Relics." It's actually sound engineering practice to pad your time estimates even in time-critical situations.
That's the one yes. And yes padding your time estimates is a good practice, but only up to a certain point. Scotty took the time he needed, padding included and doubled it. Granted he knew he'd more or less always only get half that time, but when someone can cut your given time in half and you can still finish before deadline? I'm willing to call you any number of less than nice things.
(Still he is an awesome character, I always did like him.)

I'm also trying to think of other examples, but apart from my little pony the only thing that comes up is Ezio de Auditore from Assassins Creed. People seem to love him (especially girls) for his charisma. And I can understand that, he's a rather charismatic character. But they seem more than happy to ignore that he's also a cold-blooded killer who only set out on the path of the assassin to get revenge, and more revenge, and even more. Granted as the games progress he does seem to change, but even in the first AC2 game people were acting like this. And he has an interesting habit of disregarding the safety of the people he claim to protect. (Using the Apple of Eden as a weapon in public, starting various fires and explosions and the last example I encountered, destroying a lighthouse...) I do find his story interesting, but him as a character shows several personality and/or logic flaws that people seem very willing to ignore.

[Dumbledore lives]

I'm also trying to think of other examples, but apart from my little pony the only thing that comes up is Ezio de Auditore from Assassins Creed. People seem to love him (especially girls) for his charisma. And I can understand that, he's a rather charismatic character. But they seem more than happy to ignore that he's also a cold-blooded killer who only set out on the path of the assassin to get revenge, and more revenge, and even more. Granted as the games progress he does seem to change, but even in the first AC2 game people were acting like this. And he has an interesting habit of disregarding the safety of the people he claim to protect. (Using the Apple of Eden as a weapon in public, starting various fires and explosions and the last example I encountered, destroying a lighthouse...) I do find his story interesting, but him as a character shows several personality and/or logic flaws that people seem very willing to ignore.

Ezio is a terrible person, besides the fact that he is only doing the things he does because of personal vengeance, he also believes the world is black and white, and that he as an Assassin must be good, and all Templars are evil. This is quite different from Altair, where every target had a cutscene explaining why he should kill them, and explanations for their actions afterwards.

[Velaryon]

I wouldn't say that the early Holmes has blinders of any substantial size. It's more that he gets really interested in very obscure stuff. For instance, one piece of deduction about a client's background in an early story (The Red-Headed League, IIRC) hinged on his knowledge of tribal tattoos in Southeast Asia, which led to the conclusion that the client in question had once been in the merchant marine. What changed over time was that in the early stories he was as astute as the next man in subjects he wasn't interested in, where in the later works he's pretty much a polymath who is also a world-class scholar on a multitude of fields. It's a bit of intellectual Flanderization at work.

Early Holmes did indeed try to avoid learning things that he thought were irrelevant to his work. A brief quote from A Study in Scarlet:

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

[chiasaur11]

That's the one yes. And yes padding your time estimates is a good practice, but only up to a certain point. Scotty took the time he needed, padding included and doubled it. Granted he knew he'd more or less always only get half that time, but when someone can cut your given time in half and you can still finish before deadline? I'm willing to call you any number of less than nice things.
(Still he is an awesome character, I always did like him.)


Well, the thing is Scotty's initial "I am lying and could do it in half the time drunk and blindfolded" estimates are always within the standard lengths for the job.

He's a miracle worker's miracle worker. Which is both a good reputation, and likely to get you more work than you can handle or want to do, and get you taken for granted if your CO is a guy like Kirk who takes "impossible" as a challenge.

Scotty's just playing smart.

[MLai]

Sherlock Holmes knowing less than a 13-yrs-old Christian Creationist.[/SPOILER]
OMG.
And this is the man who solves esoteric crime scenes seemingly out of thin air? HOW? :smallconfused:

[BRC]

Ezio is a terrible person, besides the fact that he is only doing the things he does because of personal vengeance, he also believes the world is black and white, and that he as an Assassin must be good, and all Templars are evil. This is quite different from Altair, where every target had a cutscene explaining why he should kill them, and explanations for their actions afterwards.
My personal theory about Ezio is that he was quite a terrible person, a well-intentioned one perhaps, but a terrible one. Remember that what Desmond (And therefore the player) relives is not Ezio's experiences, it's his Memories, each one tilted by Ezio's biases.
Let's assume Ezio never actually deluded himself into thinking certain events happened that did not. His family WAS killed, and the templars were, in fact, behind it. What his memories have done is turned the templars from people who thought they were doing the right thing, battling the dangerous, fanatical Assassins, and turned them into scheming, power-hungry villains.

So much of the game makes sense if you consider the events depicted to be imperfect memories. Why is it that Ezio can barely walk down the street without being hassled by bards or beggars? It's because he gets hassled a couple times, and his mind exaggerates things. It's like somebody complaining that "The bus always makes them late", or that "The food here is always cold", it may happen rather infrequently, but those are the times they remember. Ezio dosn't recall all the times he walked down the street without getting hassled, so in his memories he's constantly pursued by beggars.

Why must Ezio tear down wanted posters that are positioned where nobody but an assassin could ever see them? It's not because they were up there, but because Ezio found it really inconvenient to keep finding and tearing down posters. He likes to think of himself as not so whiny, so he remembers the posters as being in really inconvenient locations.


Why is it that Ezio, one man, is able to take on six guards in a fight, get hit in the face with an axe the size of his head, and walk away just fine? Because he's an egoist. What REALLY happened was Ezio took on, lets say, three guards. He beat them, but was badly injured in the process, and had to spend some time re-cooperating, however this happens so frequently that he just blows it off. So a fight with three guards that ends with him holed up in a safehouse for a few weeks turns into "Then I killed six guards and, I dunno, took some medicine or something".

Why do almost all Templar guards look and/or sound the same? Because Ezio dosn't bother remembering them.


I came up with this theory while playing Brotherhood, there is a bit at the end where Machiavelli mentions to Ezio that "Someday I'll write a book about you", and then I thought about it. In Brotherhood, Ezio takes back the city from the oppression of the Templars, works with the Theives, mercenaries, and courtesans, and recruits a guild of assassins. It's all very heroic stuff.

But, imagine things from somebody else's perspective. A shadowy leader, a man banished from his own city, has come to Rome. He is skilled and ruthless, he is too lazy to walk across the city, so he climbs buildings and kills the guards that try to stop him. He organizes thugs and criminals under his banner, forces shopkeepers to give him discounts and pay fees to continue operating in his territory. But it's very rare to find a man who considers himself a monster, and so that's not the way Ezio remembers it happening, and that's not the way Desmond experiences it.

It's like Sean (british man) said, "remember, we're Assassins. I could look it up for you, but the gist is, we Kill People".

[NikitaDarkstar]

I was going to write something long and intricate here but BRC nailed it for me in a way I didn't even notice until he layed it out like that, and I do agree when you think about it as memories and not past events things makes far more sense.
Even if I'm not quite sure I agree that he basically extorts the merchants. It seems more like he's either funded them or he simply bought the stores and they are being run by assassins/actual assassin sympathizers and he gets the discount because of that. But the rest? Yep spot on.

That does leave one question though, was Altaïr a more honest man then? Or just someone who in the end actually ended up understanding the lessons he learned in his life and acknowledged his mistakes? Because he's not painted in a very favorable light most of the time.


That said, I do enjoy the story(stories...) the games gives us quite a bit, I just don't like using my rose colored glasses to much. :)

[An Enemy Spy]

Early Holmes did indeed try to avoid learning things that he thought were irrelevant to his work. A brief quote from A Study in Scarlet:

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."



I don't think Holmes is correct here. Doesn't learning new things expand the nueral pathways in your brain that actually allow you to continually learn more and more facts?

[BRC]

I was going to write something long and intricate here but BRC nailed it for me in a way I didn't even notice until he layed it out like that, and I do agree when you think about it as memories and not past events things makes far more sense.
Even if I'm not quite sure I agree that he basically extorts the merchants. It seems more like he's either funded them or he simply bought the stores and they are being run by assassins/actual assassin sympathizers and he gets the discount because of that. But the rest? Yep spot on.

That does leave one question though, was Altaïr a more honest man then? Or just someone who in the end actually ended up understanding the lessons he learned in his life and acknowledged his mistakes? Because he's not painted in a very favorable light most of the time.


That said, I do enjoy the story(stories...) the games gives us quite a bit, I just don't like using my rose colored glasses to much. :)
Remember that one of the first things we see Altair do is make a mistake, his entire story was one of humility, even as he rose to power. As wise and skilled as Altair was, he seems like much less of an Egoist than Ezio, so it's likely his memories do not paint him as favorably. His story (The one in the first game) was one of doubt, and eventual betrayal. The man he swore to serve turned against him, the woman he grew to love began as his enemy. If Ezio looks back on his life certain he was right, Altair is full of doubts. He acknowledges his own deeds, and therefore his capabilities, but unlike Ezio he does not remember himself as some sort of superhero.

[Weezer]

I don't think Holmes is correct here. Doesn't learning new things expand the nueral pathways in your brain that actually allow you to continually learn more and more facts?

Remember, Doyle was working off of late 1800s theory of the mind/learning. It's not surprising that he got a few things wrong...

Especially since we don't have an incredibly detailed/well developed understanding of learning as it is.

[Forum Explorer]

Remember that one of the first things we see Altair do is make a mistake, his entire story was one of humility, even as he rose to power. As wise and skilled as Altair was, he seems like much less of an Egoist than Ezio, so it's likely his memories do not paint him as favorably. His story (The one in the first game) was one of doubt, and eventual betrayal. The man he swore to serve turned against him, the woman he grew to love began as his enemy. If Ezio looks back on his life certain he was right, Altair is full of doubts. He acknowledges his own deeds, and therefore his capabilities, but unlike Ezio he does not remember himself as some sort of superhero.

Altair also apparently never took a bath. Thus when you touch water its just as strange a sensation as death and breaks the program. :smallbiggrin:

[Nerd-o-rama]

OMG.
And this is the man who solves esoteric crime scenes seemingly out of thin air? HOW? :smallconfused:

Minmaxing.

[DiscipleofBob]

Minmaxing.

There was this great part in the new BBC Sherlock series where Holmes had to prove a painting was a forgery in a short amount of time or else a kid would be blown up.

It was a plot-point that said forgery was done almost perfectly, on aged paper with aged paint down to each individual brushstroke so that the copy really was indistinguishable from the original. The forgery itself was a century old at least, so there weren't any markers indicating it as "new."

Holmes finally manages to prove its a forgery because the stars in the painting, which were accurate to the night sky, included one star that wasn't visible at the time of the original's painting, but was at the time of the forgery. That little speck of white was enough to prove the forgery and save the boy.

Where did Holmes learn this? In this version, he was equally clueless about astronomy, not knowing that the earth revolved around the sun because it wasn't important (despite being the 21st century), so how could he have known about some obscure supernova barely visible in the night sky?

A few minutes ago he had a brawl with a big, muscled mook in one of those space-dome museum shows, all the while the presentation was running and being jumbled, fast-forwarded, rewound, skipping, etcetera and Holmes was busy fighting for his life, and yet he somehow managed to absorb the information from that jumbled presentation about the one star.

[Traab]

Remember, Doyle was working off of late 1800s theory of the mind/learning. It's not surprising that he got a few things wrong...

Especially since we don't have an incredibly detailed/well developed understanding of learning as it is.

The problem is that the sheer depth of willful ignorance holmes was talking about pursuing was such that he has to be actively avoiding learning things that school children pick up. I mean, that was on the level of never noticing the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Or deciding that etiquette is unneeded for his efforts, so he eats with his hands and always has, just to avoid learning some rules that would take up space in his brain he wants to keep open for "important" information.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, he learned formal etiquette for the sake of not getting thrown out of restaurants, but actively avoided learning any actual social grace, if that helps.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Altair also apparently never took a bath. Thus when you touch water its just as strange a sensation as death and breaks the program. :smallbiggrin:

Hey, they later did explain that as Abstergo messing up their Animus, the assassins fixed that with Animus 2.0! (Of course I honestly can fully believe Altaïr didn't know how to swim... or another popular theory.. water phobia. Both are more fun anyway. :p)

[Tiki Snakes]

Hey, they later did explain that as Abstergo messing up their Animus, the assassins fixed that with Animus 2.0! (Of course I honestly can fully believe Altaïr didn't know how to swim... or another popular theory.. water phobia. Both are more fun anyway. :p)

It makes the most sense as simply being the animus's settings being a bit skew-wiff. Altair didn't fall in the water, therefor if you fall in the water, animus 1.0 bugs out and you de-synchronise. Animus 2.0 they have properly configured the parameters so as to keep the damn thing from crashing all the time. Simples.

Also, yeah, it's hard to call getting a discount at a few shops extortion when you are their landlord and put up all the money they needed to open the shop in the first place, restoring both it and usually large portions of the surrounding neighborhood from boarded up slums to vibrant, thriving neighborhoods.

I'm sure there's some lee-way in the truth of what actually happened, and that some of it is undoubtedly attributable to the simple fact that it's still just a computer simulation at the end of the day, even if it is run on a super-computer. But I have no problem believing that the foremost assassin's of their time took on so many mooks so easily, given that we do see at least one real-world fight in the game whilst a groggy Desmond escapes the Templars. I forget at what point, as it's been ages, but you easily dispatch dozens of night-stick weilding guards in exactly the manner that Altar or Ezio appeared to be able to, in the anius simulations.

[Gnoman]

The problem is that the sheer depth of willful ignorance holmes was talking about pursuing was such that he has to be actively avoiding learning things that school children pick up. I mean, that was on the level of never noticing the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Or deciding that etiquette is unneeded for his efforts, so he eats with his hands and always has, just to avoid learning some rules that would take up space in his brain he wants to keep open for "important" information.

Not really. Schooling in that era was far less comprehensive and more freeform. Rather than giving a sampler of most fields of study, they focused on a few hard basics like reading, writing, and arithmetic that would serve the prospective student well in mid-level employment. More specialized fields had to be picked and chosen by the student on their own time (often in a university context), and would mostly leave out details that seemed irrelevant at the time.

[MLai]

Are you saying that when Holmes started learning about every little thing under the sun, he was actually being avant-garde (at the time of the original publications)?

[McStabbington]

Erm, sort of. Back in that time, I believe they were still effectively giving every student a bachelor's degree in philosophy before going on to specific fields. That's actually the reason why any doctoral degree outside of a degree in medicine, law and a few other practical fields is called a Ph.D.: it's a doctorate in Philosophy-whatever the subspecialty happens to be.

The thinking was two-fold. First, philosophy as a discipline trains the mind to avoid logical errors, which is a useful skill to have whether you eventually go into engineering or botany. Second, they were still carrying a massive legacy from the medieval times, when teaching science meant teaching Aristotle. While Aristotle's thinking is not scientifically accurate, it is amazingly thoughtful and coherent, and it actually took about 1900 years before scientists were able to think up tests that undermined the Aristotelian conception of how the world works.

As a consequence, trying to learn little things on their own would be seen as learning them ineffectively and getting at best a slipshod manner. So there is a glimmer of avant-gardeness to the idea that one's own observations form a better source of logical deductions than abstract, Aristotelian first principles.

[Nerd-o-rama]

At the time, Rationalism (all knowledge begins from innate ideas in the mind) and Empiricism (all knowledge begins from physical observation) were actually the two huge competing/warring schools of philosophy. Scholasticism and its reliance on Plato and Aristotle had largely fallen by the wayside in the 1500-1600s. Holmes was obviously on the side of the Empiricists, and not really doing anything new philosophically. He just applied logical deduction to his own genius for observation.

[Kato]

@Holmes
Yeah, generally what Wheezer said... Doyle worked on a very different basis of understanding than we did (and heck, he might not even believed so himself though it could be true in-universe anyway)
Now that I think about it... has there ever been a clearly defined motivation for the original Holmes? The "Sherlock" Holmes clearly does what he does to fight his boredom (though I'd argue with Disciple whether he really is as specialized as the old Holmes unless there's some part of the show I forgot) but what was it with the original? I guess it was kind of implied he did it for the same reasons (and then again you could argue all knowledge might serve him in his crime fighting) but... ah, whatever.

Point is, yeah, Sherlock has it's mistakes but the mistake is maybe being not-caring about thinks he doesn't feel like caring about (though I guess he does know the earth goes around the sun but used it as an example... though, how common was that knowledge back in the days?) but not having lacking knowledge about learning theory.

[Karoht]

Yoda VS Palpatine.

Yoda is demonstrated several times to be a powerful telekinetic.
Yoda is also demonstrated to be fast and agile.
So here's Palpatine throwing hovering platforms at him and Yoda.
Yoda suddenly stops being fast and agile.
Yoda forgets that he could easily handwave the platforms back at Palpatine.
Yoda then forgets he has telekinetic powers and falls. Hard. Somehow lives.

Palpatine then forgets that he's a powerful Sith who can feel emanations in the force, and suddenly looses track of where Yoda (an incrediby powerful Jedi Master) is. To the point where Yoda has time to hobble away slowly.

Lets recap.
Yoda could not out-agile a man in worse shape than himself.
Yoda could not out-TK the weight of hovering platforms but could out-TK a non-hovering heavy stone column.
Palpatine looses track of Yoda pretty much right in plain sight. The guy who has been hiding under the noses of the Jedi Council for decades, suddenly is unable to detect another Jedi in visual range.

That is a lot of ignored traits right there.
Oh wait, there's probably 5 EU novels that explain all this away for some reason.

[MLai]

The second I saw Yoda take out a lightsaber, I was facepalming. I think ppl were cheering during that time, though. In the cinema and on the forums.

It seemed to have taken a few years, but ppl finally seem to realize how STUPID it is for Yoda to jump around with a lightsaber. I guess it must have been RLM.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The second I saw Yoda take out a lightsaber, I was facepalming. I think ppl were cheering during that time, though. In the cinema and on the forums.

It seemed to have taken a few years, but ppl finally seem to realize how STUPID it is for Yoda to jump around with a lightsaber. I guess it must have been RLM.

I have no idea why Yoda jumping around with a lightsaber is a problem for anyone, though it would have made the earlier jokes about it better if it had never been seen on-camera.

I mean, sure he's all against aggressive fighting in Empire Strikes Back, but in AotC it was rather a necessary recourse. The way he took on Palpatine in RotS made very little sense, though, I admit.

[Tiki Snakes]

Yoda's bouncey fight scene left the cinema I was watching it in laughing out loud.
A cinema in the UK. Full of British people.
Laughing out loud.
That doesn't happen so often and I couldn't help but suspect that it wasn't the intended response. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Yoda forgets that he could easily handwave the platforms back at Palpatine.

Wasn't that exactly what Yoda did do- he stopped one flung at him, started spinning it, and then flung it back at Palpatine?

As to why Palpatine's not hunting for Yoda personally- "I sense Lord Vader is in danger"

[Karoht]

As to why Palpatine's not hunting for Yoda personally- "I sense Lord Vader is in danger"... and leaves Yoda HOBBLING away slowly to safety. Doesn't order one of those minions with blasters to even take shots at him, despite line of site, and Yoda's back turned to him. Not one blaster bolt. Huh. Seems an odd thing. Or is Palpatine just that dumb canonically? Big evil genius, overthrew the entire galaxy, wiped out most of the Jedi in one day, but couldn't be bothered to spare a blaster bolt to finish off one of the most powerful potential threats?
I don't buy that.

[hamishspence]

... and leaves Yoda HOBBLING away slowly to safety. Doesn't order one of those minions with blasters to even take shots at him, despite line of site, and Yoda's back turned to him.

I thought Yoda had already crawled into the pipe at that point?

The novel handles it better (as usual):


The base of the Arena was a hundred feet below, littered with twisted scraps and jags of metal from the pods destroyed in the battle, and as the little green freak fell, finally, above, the victorious shadow became once again only Palpatine: a very old, very tired man, gasping for air as he leaned on the pod's rail.

Old he might have been, but there was nothing wrong with his eyesight; he scanned the wreckage below, and he did not see a body.

He flicked a finger, and in the Chancellor's Podium a dozen meters away, a switch tripped and sirens sounded throughout the enormous building; another surge of the Force sent his pod streaking in a downward spiral to the holding office at the base of the Podium tower. Clone troops were already swarming into it.

"It was Yoda," he said as he swung out of the pod. "Another assassination attempt. Find him and kill him. If you have to, blow up the building."

He didn't have time to direct the search personally. The Force hummed a warning in his bones. Lord Vader was in danger.

Mortal danger.

[Karoht]

The novel handles it betterThe film still handled it (and a great deal many other things) poorly. If you think I'm going to read the novelization of such a film you're mistaken. Nor should anyone have to in order to understand a scene in a film. If they film it poorly, they film it poorly.

Yes, the force hummed a warning to him. It didn't 'hum' to him that there was this incredibly powerful force user still down below? Detect Force User just suddenly wore off?

[Nerd-o-rama]

I seem to recall Yoda Luke-in-Empire-Strikes-Back-ing his way out through some badly-explained tunnels underneath the Senate chamber, out of line-of-sight of any bad guys. Palpatine probably prioritized saving his apprentice over finishing Yoda because Yoda just got his ass thoroughly whipped and was no longer a threat - let the troopers take care of him and if they can't, oh well, he's not going to try that crap again.

Also important to remember is that, Force-user longevity aside, Palpatine and Yoda are both old men for their species. Stamina apparently starts to go before swordfighting dexterity does.

[hamishspence]

"Detect Force User" may not work well if the user is trying to conceal themselves.

The Jedi manage to miss that Palpatine is a Force User for decades- maybe just as he could hide himself, they can hide themselves.

Thing about the RotS novelization is- unlike many, it's not "phoned in"- it really deals with what the characters are thinking, adds a lot of dialogue (mostly from deleted scenes) improves some of the more "Narm-ish" lines, and so on.

Matt Stover's writing style might be a bit "purple prose"ish, but I think it really shines here.

I read the book (at the library) before I saw the film for the first time- and the book felt a lot better.

[MLai]

It's not exactly hard for any half-decent writer to improve on those films with books. :smallwink:
But anyways, why are we talking about the PT film books in the first place??

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because Lucas forgot Yoda's arthritis and preaching about not rushing into things, and the conversation kind of wandered from there.

[Karoht]

"Detect Force User" may not work well if the user is trying to conceal themselves.

The Jedi manage to miss that Palpatine is a Force User for decades- maybe just as he could hide himself, they can hide themselves.
Can sense force users while they are on other planets Light Years away from one another.
Can sense normal people dying, while in hyperspace travel no less.
Can't sense one less than 100 feet away.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Can sense force users while they are on other planets Light Years away from one another.
Can sense normal people dying, while in hyperspace travel no less.
Can't sense one less than 100 feet away.

Mind Blank is also a Sor/Wiz spell, if people want to keep incorrectly applying D&D scrying/mind-reading mechanics to Star Wars.

[Karoht]

Mind Blank is also a Sor/Wiz spell, if people want to keep incorrectly applying D&D scrying/mind-reading mechanics to Star Wars.
If we are going to meta it up that badly with D&D mechanics, then that makes Palpatine stupid for forgetting about his own trick that he's used to fool the Jedi for decades.
He is also stupid for thinking that Yoda wouldn't just mind-trick all the troopers he sends after him, when he knows full well how powerful a force-user that Master Yoda is.

@Anakin was in trouble
Pfft. So? Victory was already his. Victory was not riding on Anakin's ability to finish up his little tiff with Obi-wan, complete victory was riding on Palpatine finishing off his opponent.


"Well, we can't let the emperor KILL Yoda, that would break continuity."
[insert incredulous asspull]

[The Glyphstone]

A real asspull would have been letting Palpatine kill Yoda, or at least mortally wound him then walk off. Before he dies, he sends a telepathic message to his never-before seen identical twin brother, who's also a Jedi Master, living on Dagobah and impersonating Yoda in his place.

[Pie Guy]

A real asspull would have been letting Palpatine kill Yoda, or at least mortally wound him then walk off. Before he dies, he sends a telepathic message to his never-before seen identical twin brother, who's also a Jedi Master, living on Dagobah and impersonating Yoda in his place.

Also, the real Yoda is Han Solo's father.

[Nerd-o-rama]

@Anakin was in trouble
Pfft. So? Victory was already his. Victory was not riding on Anakin's ability to finish up his little tiff with Obi-wan, complete victory was riding on Palpatine finishing off his opponent.

I fail to see how killing one individual Jedi - either Obi-Wan or Yoda - is less important than going and pulling your designated attack dog's literal ass out of the literal fire so you can use him to hunt down the remaining dozens to a hundred or so Jedi in the interquel games and novels. Yeah, Yoda's powerful, but what the hell could he do after losing that fight? Palpatine assumed "nothing", and he was damn close to correct. All Yoda did for the next twenty years was hide, give Luke some pointers (helpful, but Obi-Wan could have as easily sent him chasing after a Holocron), and die. Assessing him as no longer a threat was a pretty sound decision on Palpatine's part.

Also now I really don't know why we're on this.

[Tiki Snakes]

Yeah, Yoda's powerful, but what the hell could he do after losing that fight?

Recover?
Ten Characters.

[Nerd-o-rama]

And do what to the Empire, exactly? He was clearly outmatched in a fight, and he - being damn close to the last Jedi in existence - didn't exactly have any connections or resources. Palpatine outclassed him pretty clearly, and Yoda is not exactly an assassin.

[MLai]

A tiny little guy who can read minds, manipulate minds, hide his Force aura, jump around like a ninja, has a sword that can cut thru anything, and who has specifically tried to kill you...

... is not exactly an assassin?

[Fri]

Anyway, I've been looking for this for a long time, and it's kinda on topic here, so who knows?

I remember reading an excerpts/pic of an old comic magazine, (I mean real old, 4 colors old) where a reader asked 'who's smarter, superman or batman?' and the editor answers, 'superman, no question.'

Anyone know about it and can provide me with a link to it?

[Dienekes]

For Sherlock, far more annoying to me than when they forget to emphasize that Sherlock has gaps in his brilliance to the point of idiocy (Hell, Doyle seems to have ignored this at times) is when writers forget that he's asexual (which was always a part of the original character), and pair him with Adler. The new movies were terrible about that, and I'm dreading the next season of Sherlock when they finally introduce her for that reason.

[BRC]

For Sherlock, far more annoying to me than when they forget to emphasize that Sherlock has gaps in his brilliance to the point of idiocy (Hell, Doyle seems to have ignored this at times) is when writers forget that he's asexual (which was always a part of the original character), and pair him with Adler. The new movies were terrible about that, and I'm dreading the next season of Sherlock when they finally introduce her for that reason.
Actually, the Show already introduced Adler, and while the Films got just about everything wrong with the character (Intelligent, British actress turns to generic criminal Action Girl who speaks with an american accent), I certainly didn't get the impression that Holmes was trying to get in her pants.
Sherlock's (The Show) Holmes was certainly very keen to impress their version of Adler, but they play up the "Egoist" aspect of the character, so you could chalk that up to his desire to impress a fellow genius who knew which buttons to push. Then again, I'm a shameless fanboy, so this could be me justifying things.

[Dienekes]

Actually, the Show already introduced Adler, and while the Films got just about everything wrong with the character (Intelligent, British actress turns to generic criminal Action Girl who speaks with an american accent), I certainly didn't get the impression that Holmes was trying to get in her pants.
Sherlock's (The Show) Holmes was certainly very keen to impress their version of Adler, but they play up the "Egoist" aspect of the character, so you could chalk that up to his desire to impress a fellow genius who knew which buttons to push. Then again, I'm a shameless fanboy, so this could be me justifying things.

Show doesn't get to America for a few months (Do not spoil anything, please). So, while I am also a fan, the fact that you have to make excuses for the show does not make me feel better about the situation.

Also from the books, Adler was American. While the movie got everything else wrong, that at least was correct.

[Fri]

Well, I won't say anything else then, but I'm just going to say that the afromentioned episode is the best adaptation of holmes and adler relationship that I've ever seen for me. At least, that's how I interpreted how they interact with each others in that episode.

[NinjaStylerobot]

OMG.
And this is the man who solves esoteric crime scenes seemingly out of thin air? HOW? :smallconfused:

PLOT CONVENIENCE! This man would be in an insane asylum from all the pointless details he notices and would go insane from not channeling them out.

[Devonix]

Anyway, I've been looking for this for a long time, and it's kinda on topic here, so who knows?

I remember reading an excerpts/pic of an old comic magazine, (I mean real old, 4 colors old) where a reader asked 'who's smarter, superman or batman?' and the editor answers, 'superman, no question.'

Anyone know about it and can provide me with a link to it?

Superman is smarter partly because his brain works differently than a humans he's got an Eidetic memory anything he sees he remembers with perfect clerity no matter what happens. and since Superman has telescopic and microscopic vision he can scope out an entire scene and memorize every detail of machinery or biology or any such thing and recall it perfectly years later. He's shown often reading many types of books on science and with superspeed reading multiple ones at a time.

Its similar to how the Flash's function with their memories. Reading books at superspeed so that they can recall the knowledge.

Superman also has the advantage of working with higher level technology than batman. Teleportation tech and other such things in the JLA is usually based on Superman's stuff. Batman even has a high tech battlesuit that Superman built for him.

Batman's a better creative problem solver, Superman has more Raw Intellect.
Superman knows more Batman can figure out things better is a good way to describe it.

[DomaDoma]

We started this thread with comic book characters? Folks, if a comic book character can be considered "popular", it is guaranteed that there has been someone to ignore every trait that character possesses.

One thing fanfic writers miss alarmingly often about L from Death Note is that he dances with some seriously dubious stuff and doesn't much care what anyone else thinks of it. (Except on the rare occasion that someone gets a better idea for achieving the same ends.) Seriously, even the people who take the one-shot as canon - I don't, as Obata clearly had no part in it - but even those people don't seem to get this fundamental aspect of the character.

I think every character from Harry Potter, barring the straight-up black villains like Bella Lestrange, gets warped out of recognition one way or another depending on whether the person discussing them likes the character.

[Devonix]

We started this thread with comic book characters? Folks, if a comic book character can be considered "popular", it is guaranteed that there has been someone to ignore every trait that character possesses.

One thing fanfic writers miss alarmingly often about L from Death Note is that he dances with some seriously dubious stuff and doesn't much care what anyone else thinks of it. (Except on the rare occasion that someone gets a better idea for achieving the same ends.) Seriously, even the people who take the one-shot as canon - I don't, as Obata clearly had no part in it - but even those people don't seem to get this fundamental aspect of the character.

I think every character from Harry Potter, barring the straight-up black villains like Bella Lestrange, gets warped out of recognition one way or another depending on whether the person discussing them likes the character.

From what I've seen L is about getting the job done and isn't really a nice guy having no problem putting people in mortal jepardy to get his goals accomplished.

[darthbobcat]

Indeed. One wonders why the Holmes of early stories, not knowledgeable or really interested enough about astronomy enough to know the Earth moves around the Sun, has read an astronomy book about something so esoteric as how an asteroid moves.

Though, I suppose the author of said book might have something to do with.

To be fair, if he was "quote mining," he might have missed the sections about the structure of the solar system.

[DomaDoma]

Also, I don't remember the time frame for STUD, but it was well before 1888, when he's generally agreed to have mentioned that book. But he does know a lot of esoterica that, according to STUD, he would have no reason to keep in that metaphorical attic - to say nothing of the continuity issues with FINA we're dancing around.

As far as L, that's exactly what I mean, plus the whole torture bit. His Monkeysphere is at least bigger than Light's - while he will calmly let dozens of faceless strangers die to prove a point, he does, where possible, install a failsafe when it's a colleague whose life he's endangering.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I thought the whole point of Death Note was two amusingly amoral/sociopathic/socially-disaffected loonies having at each other with lethal logic puzzles. (God, all the Silver Age comic book mentions in this thread are making me alliterate). And then after L's death, three.

[DomaDoma]

...I'd tell you off, but I've been spoiling Deathly Hallows on general threads, I should talk.

Yes, that is the main draw of Death Note. (Unless you're a loony like me who always comes up with elaborate scenarios about the man on the street. Seriously, none of my multi-part fanfic plans contain any characters more major than The Guy In Charge Of The Rebellion While The Canon Viewpoint Characters Are Doing All Its Most Crucial Work.) But that doesn't preclude character analysis.

[MLai]

L was amoral? I never saw any "wrongdoing" by L.

Sure, he's methodical and un-emotional. He doesn't get all riled up with self-righteous indignation when he sees someone getting hurt. But that doesn't mean he isn't already doing everything he could to counteract it or prevent a re-occurence. He just doesn't bother getting on a soapbox.

I thought he was the Jpnese teenage Sherlock Holmes.

[Nerd-o-rama]

L was amoral? I never saw any "wrongdoing" by L.

Sure, he's methodical and un-emotional. He doesn't get all riled up with self-righteous indignation when he sees someone getting hurt. But that doesn't mean he isn't already doing everything he could to counteract it or prevent a re-occurence. He just doesn't bother getting on a soapbox.

I thought he was the Jpnese teenage Sherlock Holmes.

He's clearly less concerned with the rampant murder and more concerned with solving a puzzle. Very much Sherlock Holmes, yes, but I don't recall Sherlock holding off on an arrest because he was only "99% sure" the subject was the perpetrator just because he wanted to show that he could be "100% sure".

Then again, if Phoenix Wright really is an accurate representation of the Japanese legal system maybe you do need a logically bulletproof case rather than things like evidence, which L had plenty of.

[Forum Explorer]

He's clearly less concerned with the rampant murder and more concerned with solving a puzzle. Very much Sherlock Holmes, yes, but I don't recall Sherlock holding off on an arrest because he was only "99% sure" the subject was the perpetrator just because he wanted to show that he could be "100% sure".

Then again, if Phoenix Wright really is an accurate representation of the Japanese legal system maybe you do need a logically bulletproof case rather than things like evidence, which L had plenty of.

....has anyone made a Phoenix Wright Death Note crossover yet?

[DiscipleofBob]

....has anyone made a Phoenix Wright Death Note crossover yet?

Phoenix Wright/Professor Layton crossover yes. Which I want. But will probabl never have. :smallfrown:

[Nerd-o-rama]

....has anyone made a Phoenix Wright Death Note crossover yet?

I read a pretty decent Phoenix Wright/Bleach crossover once.

[Raimun]

Solid Snake.

He's practically psychotic, just not the yelling, raving kind, of course :smallamused:. He seems to acknowledge this and is trying to keep himself in check. Yet people focus only on his "badassery".

[Karoht]

Solid Snake.

He's practically psychotic, just not the yelling, raving kind, of course :smallamused:. He seems to acknowledge this and is trying to keep himself in check. Yet people focus only on his "badassery".

Well, anyone who kills anyone could be considered Psychotic. In Snake's context, he does it for a living, and for a cause. Could you be a bit more specific as to what you mean by psychotic in this context?

Mind you, saying that 'It's his job' may or may not be applicable. It is not a sign of mental health to be well adjusted to a poor situation, as the old phrase goes.
Also, I don't find him to be all that 'badass' so by all means, I would sincerely love to hear you out.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think Raimun's saying the fandom tends to play up Snake's super-soldier abilities and action hero persona, ignoring the deep psychological trauma he's exhibited in one way or another since Metal Gear Solid (except for the ones who focus solely on that so that some lovin' from Otacon in their fanfics can fix him right up.)

[Kato]

I think Raimun's saying the fandom tends to play up Snake's super-soldier abilities and action hero persona, ignoring the deep psychological trauma he's exhibited in one way or another since Metal Gear Solid (except for the ones who focus solely on that so that some lovin' from Otacon in their fanfics can fix him right up.)

I don't think that's what he meant to say but that is a point. But I guess I'll have to feel just as guilty since I do consider Snake to be one of the most badass badasses ever in fiction.
And most of the time, except for MGS IV his psychological traumata are mostly ignored for the sake of him being badass.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It gets brought up in Metal Gear Solid in a few conversations. If nothing else, he goes from a gravelly-voiced James Bond in the first few scenes to a bit of an emotional wreck around the climax - still does his job, though.

Metal Gear Solid 2, yeah, it's mostly implied because you're not seeing most of the game through Snake's eyes, and MGS3 lacks Solid Snake entirely.