Superheroes losing their powers...

[Runestar]

I just came back from watching "The Wolverine", and it is yet another entrant into this trend which irritates me.

For the first half of the show, Wolverine is infected with some robotic device which suppresses his healing factor, but which apparently still allows him to survive being shot and stabbed. So he doesn't die, but his wounds still hurt a lot.

His claws also get cut off, but I didn't really mind since that occurs at the end of the show, though that may become an issue in the sequel.

This is not the only culprit.

In Iron Man 1, Tony Stark faced Stane (in Iron Monger suit) with a seriously depleting power supply, which left him unable to do much of anything.

In Iron Man 2, he had a life-threatending condition which monopolised much of the plot in the entire show.

In Iron Man 3, he made the baffling decision of sticking with a prototype armour which didn't work right most of the time (despite already having an awesome suit of armour in Avengers which could stand up to the likes of Thor). The result was him getting trashed by underpowered villains like a normal gunship. The entire Iron Man series may very well be retitled as "Tony Stark".

In Spiderman2, Peter Parker temporarily lost his powers because he "didn't want to be Spiderman". There are more examples, but I think you get my point.

In short, they were not the titular heroes I paid to see in a movie. So much movie time is spent with them mucking around being regular humans and being emo, when all I want is to see them kick butt.

For me, the point of Wolverine being Wolverine is that he heals fast (to the point of being unbeatable) and has freaking adamantium claws that can slice through anything. Not to see him lose his healing powers and fall to gun-toting henchmen and (almost) simply exertion from chopping up a tree.

What do you all think of this trend in movies of having superheroes lose their powers and being forced to confront their own mortality?

[LaZodiac]

I think it's good when used well. For instance, the Iron Man 3 example is used well because Tony Stark is under going PTSD about all but literally dying due to a nuke and being in space. It's clear he's not acting rationally.

Also, your comment that the Iron Man movies could be called Tony Stark is...pretty accurate, but I think that's good. I didn't want to see 90 minutes of Iron Man just killing terrorists without anything actually happening other then...you know, him saving people and killing terrorists. The movies have always been about the character in the suit, because at the end of the day that's who Iron Man REALLY is. He's not some invincible warrior of steel. He's a dude in a suit, and that dude has problems that affect him.

[Kitten Champion]

I think it's fine.

Spider-Man two worked because it treated his psychosomatic loss of powers with some levity. It underscored what his life could be without the pressures of the world on his shoulders.

In Thor, well, that was essential for him to learn humility and find value in humanity. Although I felt like it was cut too short to genuinely get this across.

Iron Man one didn't really do this, they simply built up the tension by giving Tony a serious disadvantage in the boss fight. Tony's superpower is his prodigious engineering skills, the suit is simply an extension of that.

Facing mortality in Iron Man two isn't the same as losing his powers. He was still Iron Man, even when confronting terminal illness. It was simply a battle he had to fight in a less violent and more thoughtful fashion.

I guess, are superheroes just a collection of super-powers with a face, or do we care about the character beneath them?

[Traab]

I like it when its done right because its meant to show us that a true hero is more than his powers. Its nothing more than a different version of "Totally outmatched super hero fights anyways and through his perseverance, wins the day"

[snoopy13a]

It isn't a new trend, see Superman 2.

[Cheesegear]

It isn't a new trend, see Superman 2.

QFT.

Can the Hero triumph without their Gifts? It's part of the Hero's Journey and the trope has existed since fiction pretty much began. It's almost on par with when the Hero's Nemesis has the same Gift. Sure, the Hero can beat up and outsmart chumps, but what about the playing field is equalised one way or the other?

Is the Hero more than his Gifts?

Let's go to Steve Rogers, his entire first act is establishing that he was a Hero before he was made Super.

[Tavar]

Hell, I'm pretty sure the Wolverine movies plot is at least adapted from a series somewhere.

[Mordar]

I think there is another consideration to throw into the mix - power creep creating villain escalation.

Once heroes have been shown to be "Uber", villains in movies generally must be made to be "Uber + 1" to create the underdog hero element. (Note: Now, you can do "Smarter Villain" instead of stronger villain, but we still need some action pay-off, so stronger is the preferred option.) The hero often then becomes "Uber +2" through new powers, training or gear, and thus mooks no longer present a speedbump much less an obstacle

Over the course of an established franchise this becomes a major problem and requires either a reboot, a sequence of ever-more-uber bad guys (which throws the scope out of whack) or a de-escalation of the hero's power.

While I didn't care for the method in Wolverine, I thought it might have been a neat route to go for the character...bring back gunshots and sword wounds as short-term concerns and we feel more tension/risk for the character. Then he extracted the strange robot from his heart (which seems to control his healing factor?) and it's right back to functionally indestructible. Ah well.

I also agree with the "hero vs. himself" or "hero without the powers?" ideas put forth earlier (even if I didn't like the IM3 variation), and just wanted to toss this one on the pile.

- M

[Hawriel]

I just came back from watching "The Wolverine", and it is yet another entrant into this trend which irritates me.

For me, the point of Wolverine being Wolverine is that he heals fast (to the point of being unbeatable) and has freaking adamantium claws that can slice through anything. Not to see him lose his healing powers and fall to gun-toting henchmen and (almost) simply exertion from chopping up a tree.


The fact that Wolverine in the movies insta heals like the liquid terminator is what has been wrong with the character for 15 years.

He should not insta heal. Sure he can recover wounds that would have killed or seriously crippled a normal person, or that he has a robust imune system that will take care of all but the most ruthless diseases, not to mention harmful mutation such as cancer. However its way over the top to be pointless in today's Marvel comics and movies.

A good wolverine is the one we had after his healing abilities were turned off. He would get the crap kicked out of him and keep on coming. That's what makes him the "wolverine". Not magic insta heal. Magic insta heal makes the adamantium bones pointless. There was a reason he had them, because real traumatic injury could cripple if not kill him. Take that away and there is no danger. Why should I care about the character?

A better way to write the character is to have him heal quickly compared to a normal person. A shot gun blast in the gut can be healed, if he take out the shot, then rests over night. Deep cuts, burns, ruptured organs, all potentially lethal. However his body has a nack for holding out until for medical attention if it is sever enough to need it. Such as a severed aorta. That should kill him. That is why he has admantium bones.

[Raimun]

Truth be told, I don't like this trope either. One, it's over used now days. Two, you can show the human side of the character with the powers on.

Dark Knight Rises suffered a lot from this. Bruce Wayne was not being Batman for two separate times in that story. At first he had retired. At the second time, he was imprisoned by Bane for months. Both cut the time we could see a man dressed like a bat fighting crime. That is what I was paying to see.

Compare it to The Dark Knight. There's no "lose your power"-part, yet it's one the best superhero-movies ever. The man dressed as a bat fights crime for entire length of the movie and faces the kind of things a man dressed as a bat faces. I've never heard people wishing Batman should have broken both of his legs or something in The Dark Knight.

The same goes for The Avengers. There's no power loss but it's still a smashing good movie. The superheroes are allowed to be superheroes and do the kind of stuff superheroes do.

The man makes the suit and the suit makes the man. Leave it at that and let me see a superhero and a supervillain fighting each other.

[Jayngfet]

I think the problem is that most times it's done sloppily.

Iron Man 3 is probably the best example, when he builds some quick and dirty gear and manages to prove he doesn't NEED the suit to be awesome. The awesomeness comes straight from him.

That's how it's done best in comics. When a hero is trapped without their superpowers or gadgets, and they manage to kick just as much ass, or at least give as good as they get, because the powers aren't a crutch so much as an extension of the character. When Oliver Queen is disarmed and in a prison, he uses his bedframe and some old clothing fabric to make a new bow. When Guy Gardner's fighting an enemy triple his size and his ring is out of power, he knocks them down with his resourcefulness and grit. When Superman can't use his powers to just beat some regular mooks, he manages to do just fine because he's a damn good hero(though he notes Batman would do it faster in those circumstances). When Peter Parker gets a power down, he learns martial arts to compensate and keeps going.

It shouldn't take up a huge chunk of the story, but it's important for any hero who's franchise goes on long enough to prove they aren't using their super equipment in the place of actual skill.

[Sunken Valley]

They do it to make tension. It's boring if the hero is full power.

[Traab]

They do it to make tension. It's boring if the hero is full power.

Only when the bad guy or whatever threat he is facing is easily handled. Give him someone his super powers cant beat for whatever reason, and it doesnt matter if he is powered up, the tension, the drama, the test of character, all of that stays more or less the same. Will he go out there and fight, knowing he cant win this? Will he struggle to find a way to victory? Will he give up? (yeah right)

[warty goblin]

Only when the bad guy or whatever threat he is facing is easily handled. Give him someone his super powers cant beat for whatever reason, and it doesnt matter if he is powered up, the tension, the drama, the test of character, all of that stays more or less the same. Will he go out there and fight, knowing he cant win this? Will he struggle to find a way to victory? Will he give up? (yeah right)

I think the problem with this is that it ends up as heading into the sort of territory usually reserved for six year olds playing with action figure. "My guy can throw a garbage truck!" "Yeah well my guy can throw a building!" "Yeah well my guy can throw a planet!" "Yeah well my guy can..."'

Basically a race to RidiculousVille, and I don't think it makes for a better, more dramatic story. Take the Wolverine. Until he got his healing back, the fights had some tension and creativity, but after that? Total yawnfest, because he didn't have to be clever or skilled anymore, and just soaked up the damage.

The other problem is a certain feeling of arbitrariness in a fight. With a tough but decidedly mortal character, I know what's dangerous, and how to read a fight. That is, when something happens I have some idea of what it means for the progression of the combat, how character A defeats character B. But past a certain threshold it kinda starts to feel like a bunch of sturm und drang; eventually producers blow enough of their CGI budget throwing guys through incidental buildings, at which point the fight will end for reasons essentially unrelated to everything that went before. Pacific Rim is my go-to example here, since basically nothing up until the last twelve seconds of a fight meant a damn thing, and there was no dramatic logic to how fights went. While combat damage etc is always a product of the plot, it's nice if the plot acts like there's a logic to it and its consequences.

I like my fights to be part of the overall story, not just lots of pixels getting exploded. Past some threshold though that's all it feels like for me, because all of the drama has been removed for the sake of a few more 'awesome bits.' Awesome, I'm beginning to suspect, is in its usual present-day usage, the antithesis of me giving a crap.

[Traab]

While going with the standard, "Hero +1" in stats is a simple way to establish an "unwinnable" fight it is both easy and leads to the scenario you mention, it doesnt have to be that way either. Someone who just COUNTERS the heroes abilities can work, johnny storm fights a creature made of sentient lava. Ok johnny boy, how will flame on help here? That sort of thing. Then you have to have a story where he gets his arse kicked, manages to limp away, goes through the whole denial anger depression acceptance steps, and works to find a way to beat him. Your yawn fest battle applies to any hero movie, not just one that involves a depowered hero, or where his abilities just dont work against this guy style battle.

[warty goblin]

While going with the standard, "Hero +1" in stats is a simple way to establish an "unwinnable" fight it is both easy and leads to the scenario you mention, it doesnt have to be that way either. Someone who just COUNTERS the heroes abilities can work, johnny storm fights a creature made of sentient lava. Ok johnny boy, how will flame on help here? That sort of thing. Then you have to have a story where he gets his arse kicked, manages to limp away, goes through the whole denial anger depression acceptance steps, and works to find a way to beat him. Your yawn fest battle applies to any hero movie, not just one that involves a depowered hero, or where his abilities just dont work against this guy style battle.

But this just becomes Battle of the Gimmicks. ("My guy can shoot lasers out of his fingernails!" "Oh yeah? Well my guy is completely immune to lasers." "Oh yeah? Well my guy...") Also of course such specific vulnerability just decreases the number of interesting, dangerous things that can be thrown at a character, and means once they find a way to deal with that particular weakness they're that much closer to completely unstoppable.

Now maybe it's just me, but I don't really go into a movie with explicit expectations that must be met about how they handle things like character powers etc. I go in hoping it'll provide a good, dramatic story. That's it. I don't really care how faithful an adaption it is, I care that right now I'm interested and invested in what's on screen. Which I find is more likely to happen when the super-powers are kept in service to the story, not the other way 'round. Which the depowered superhero trick does nicely, since it usually functions to make use of the hero's power demand resolution of conflicts that can't be solved by punching people. Superhero movies as a rule already have a lot of people getting punched, they hardly need more.

[Raimun]

I still think power loss is most often lazy writing. It's just not a very creative solution since it has been used for like a million times. Is it too much to ask for both dramatic tension and actual superheroics at the same time?

Remember the end of Dark Knight? Joker is at the top of a tall building and has hostages dressed as his clown henchmen and his henchmen as hostages. The SWAT-teams are planning to raid the building with extreme prejudice but they are walking to a trap where they will be killed after they have executed lots of innocent civilians. Batman knows something is wrong and it's up to him to to save everyone.

That point was intense. It was also a test of character. Batman was willing to protect the SWAT-teams, even if it meant that he had to fight them.

EDIT: In fact, Batman even got a power boost for that fight. He could see where everyone was by using that elaborate cell phone trick.

A lazier writer would have just taken away Batman's utility belt and cape and/or wounded him before sending him to face the Joker who has just a handful of henchmen. I also doubt there would have been a face off with Two Face after that.

[Hawriel]

I still think power loss is most often lazy writing. It's just not a very creative solution since it has been used for like a million times. Is it too much to ask for both dramatic tension and actual superheroics at the same time?

Remember the end of Dark Knight? Joker is at the top of a tall building and has hostages dressed as his clown henchmen and his henchmen as hostages. The SWAT-teams are planning to raid the building with extreme prejudice but they are walking to a trap where they will be killed after they have executed lots of innocent civilians. Batman knows something is wrong and it's up to him to to save everyone.

That point was intense. It was also a test of character. Batman was willing to protect the SWAT-teams, even if it meant that he had to fight them.

EDIT: In fact, Batman even got a power boost for that fight. He could see where everyone was by using that elaborate cell phone trick.

A lazier writer would have just taken away Batman's utility belt and cape and/or wounded him before sending him to face the Joker who has just a handful of henchmen. I also doubt there would have been a face off with Two Face after that.

That is not power loss. Batman has no powers so there is nothing to lose in that manner. Also If Batman had been ensured or had equipment loss it would have been as a consequence of an action in the story. It would have been a testament of Bruce Wynes endurance, conviction, and adapt and over come mind set if this did happen, and he pushed on to do what need to be done.

[Raimun]

That is not power loss. Batman has no powers so there is nothing to lose in that manner. Also If Batman had been ensured or had equipment loss it would have been as a consequence of an action in the story. It would have been a testament of Bruce Wynes endurance, conviction, and adapt and over come mind set if this did happen, and he pushed on to do what need to be done.

That was an example of a movie that worked without a power loss of any kind.

Loss of gear (or even an injury) is a power loss. If Batman doesn't have access to his high-tech gadgets and cape, he would be at a serious disadvantage compared to a normal situation where he has all of his gear.

Remember, power takes many forms. Just because Batman doesn't have super powers, doesn't mean he can't lose power. For example, Dark Knight Rises slapped Batman with a serious power loss at several times. Most notably when Bane broke Batman's back. At that point, he wasn't able to save the day as Batman. If that isn't a power loss, I don't know what is.

[HandofShadows]

The fact that Wolverine in the movies insta heals like the liquid terminator is what has been wrong with the character for 15 years.


Wolverine has always "insta healed" in the comics. The rate of healing depends on the writer of course and when the story takes place.

[Starbuck_II]

While I didn't care for the method in Wolverine, I thought it might have been a neat route to go for the character...bring back gunshots and sword wounds as short-term concerns and we feel more tension/risk for the character. Then he extracted the strange robot from his heart (which seems to control his healing factor?) and it's right back to functionally indestructible. Ah well.

- M

He still lost against the main boss (even the ninja beat him) even with his super healing if you remember. So it doesn't mean to heal if you lose a important fight or goal.

Although he had backup so it ended good.

[MLai]

You guys do know the Wolverine movie is based on this, right?
http://www.shazam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the-essential-frank-miller.jpg

Back when Frank Miller could write a great story.

Frank de-powered Wolverine to the point that not only can ninjas give him trouble, but a single skilled human swordsman completely kicked his ass (you see this scene in the movie, but it's been modified). Logan was so curbstomped, the man just threw his bleeding ass on the curb because he wasn't worth killing.

It made for a GREAT Wolverine story. I don't care what the movie had to do in order to de-power Logan enough to recreate most of that graphic novel. Cybernetic heartworm? Fine, go for it. Logan was vulnerable and I was happy.

[Starbuck_II]

You guys do know the Wolverine movie is based on this, right?
http://www.shazam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the-essential-frank-miller.jpg

Back when Frank Miller could write a great story.

Frank de-powered Wolverine to the point that not only can ninjas give him trouble, but a single skilled human swordsman completely kicked his ass (you see this scene in the movie, but it's been modified). Logan was so curbstomped, the man just threw his bleeding ass on the curb because he wasn't worth killing.

It made for a GREAT Wolverine story. I don't care what the movie had to do in order to de-power Logan enough to recreate most of that graphic novel. Cybernetic heartworm? Fine, go for it. Logan was vulnerable and I was happy.

In the movie, he was in trouble because he forgot he can heal anything but he isn't super strong. He should have whirlwinded his blades to cut the arrows' lines.

I'm more interested in the ending.
Is that really Charles' back in his original body or was the fact that time stopped indicate it was a mental meeting and Charles is still in coma guy's body?

[Spuddles]

superheroes losing their powers is boring, dull, and formulaic. it's an entirely unimaginative narrative, which shouldn't be surprising, given how terribly contrived most superhero movies are.

[Raimun]

I have now seen this movie.

It wasn't bad but neither good. Kind of forgettable and more to the point: meh.

Could have used more ninjas and mutants... and ninja-mutants.

[Drakeburn]

To me, heroes losing their powers seems a bit overused.

Let's make a list of how many heroes lose their powers, shall we?

- Hercules (from the Disney movie Hercules)
- Spiderman (from Spiderman 2)
- Wolverine
- Superman (so many times it isn't even funny)
- Static Shock
- Gear (from Static Shock of course)

Anybody else want to add to the list?

[MLai]

The reason I liked this movie, and was not fazed by the above cliche, is because I don't consider Logan to be a superhero.

He never once put on any kind of costume. Not even a nod to a costume element. He never made an inspirational speech, never said a catchphrase, and even "Bub" he only said once in the movie. This was more Kill Bill than any superhero movie.

The worst part of this movie, as well as most of the budget, all happened in the end scene. If all the Silver Samurai was, was Shigen (the middle-aged son) dressed in normal adamantium samurai armor without cybernetics of any kind, and with a heat sword so that he could have a "fair fight" with Logan... I would have been a happier camper with the movie ending right there.

[TheThan]

Well it was pretty clear to me at least that wolverine didn’t lose his healing factor completely, he takes multiple shotgun blasts to the abdomen, and several gunshots to the chest during the big battle scene and he doesn’t die. The gunshots slow him down and make it harder for him to do what he does best. It takes the rest of the day for him to succumb to his injuries.

So he was weakened to the point where thugs with guns could potentially kill him. So I don’t really count The Wolverine as depowered. It however made MUCH more sense than Spiderman II.



I'm more interested in the ending.
Is that really Charles' back in his original body or was the fact that time stopped indicate it was a mental meeting and Charles is still in coma guy's body?

Yeah I have my own theory about that:

I think the whole death of Xavier thing in X-3 was an elaborate Illusion created by Xavier to calm down the “Phoenix”( I hesitate to call her that). After all if you are the most powerful telepath in the world, and you KNOW that a powerful telekinetic wants to kill you, would you let her? But if she thinks her enemy is dead, then she’s less likely to go nuts and start tearing anything up. Which we don’t see her do till the end of that film.

This makes sense when you consider that Magneto is the only one out of the witnesses that is immune to telepathy due to his “dorky helmet that blocks telepathy” and that he is only slightly upset at the loss of his friend, because he knows he’s not really dead.

As far as a mental meeting thing, I’m not so sure. When he looks into Senator Kelly’s mind, he’s capable of walking around normally. Why wouldn’t he be able to do the same if he was just talking to someone telepathically. Also we see magneto use his powers, indicating that it’s not a telepathy thing.
Pretty much, when dealing with Psychics never trust what you see. Now I think all of this has been done after the fact, since you know, they probably didn’t know that they were going to be making another X-movie back then.

Now I’m probably completely off here, and they’re likely to do something incredibly stupid to explain it, so we’ll wait and see. Until then, this is my theory.

[MLai]

The "everyone freezing in place" thing is a telepathic trick of Xavier's, which has been shown in the prior movies. It's not an illusion or a dream. Xavier simply freezes everyone's thought processes so that they lose a couple of minutes of memory.

[Arcanist]

It isn't a new trend, see Superman 2.

No, I try to make it a habit to not watch bad movies unless I can laugh at them. I will however make an exception if you watch Superman 4.


Truth be told, I don't like this trope either. One, it's over used now days.

It has slowly become SO overused that it is effectively a cliche. Hell, I can even tell you the formula step by step:


Hero loses powers for whatever reason.
Hero goes through depression because they think the powers made them Heroes.
Pep talk convinces them they were a Hero, powers or not.


It isn't just bad, it's painful.

[Hopeless]

While going with the standard, "Hero +1" in stats is a simple way to establish an "unwinnable" fight it is both easy and leads to the scenario you mention, it doesnt have to be that way either. Someone who just COUNTERS the heroes abilities can work, johnny storm fights a creature made of sentient lava. Ok johnny boy, how will flame on help here? That sort of thing. Then you have to have a story where he gets his arse kicked, manages to limp away, goes through the whole denial anger depression acceptance steps, and works to find a way to beat him. Your yawn fest battle applies to any hero movie, not just one that involves a depowered hero, or where his abilities just dont work against this guy style battle.

he draws off the heat its projecting causing it to cool and freeze solid and hopefully immobile otherwise he's solid enough for the Thing to punch it!:smallwink:

Sorry couldn't resist!

[joca4christ]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so if someone else has clearly established this point...my apologies.

I think stories (whether the medium is a movie or comic) that have the hero at a disadvantage of some sort, whether it's power loss, a super powerful villain, etc, makes said story more compelling to a lot of us. We don't have super powers. Making the hero more human helps us identify with them more.

That's why, in part, heroes have secret identities. If they paraded around in costume all the time, and their "normal" lives were never shown, then we, as the audience wouldn't relate to them as well.

That's why, in my opinion, Spider-man is one of the top all time comic heroes. It isn't just because his powerset is cool, it's the human element of Peter Parker trying to juggle being a hero with living a life as a regular joe. That's a part of what makes his story so compelling.

That's just my two cents...

[Tiki Snakes]

I don't know. I think I see another angle on the whole thing. One of the basic ways to examine a character is to take away a single asset or factor and see how they do without it. Be that putting them in a location they are unfamiliar with, cutting them off from their support cast or denying them one of their signature tricks somehow. Depowering is just another facet of that.

[endoperez]

To me, heroes losing their powers seems a bit overused.

Let's make a list of how many heroes lose their powers, shall we?

- Hercules (from the Disney movie Hercules)
- Spiderman (from Spiderman 2)
- Wolverine
- Superman (so many times it isn't even funny)
- Static Shock
- Gear (from Static Shock of course)

Anybody else want to add to the list?

TvTropes kind of took the fun out of these. There are so many you never catch remember as many as the TvTropes list has, and you don't want to check your list against the TvTropes because you might get stuck there...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BroughtDownToNormal
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DePower

[TheThan]

The "everyone freezing in place" thing is a telepathic trick of Xavier's, which has been shown in the prior movies. It's not an illusion or a dream. Xavier simply freezes everyone's thought processes so that they lose a couple of minutes of memory.

We don't know exactly what Xavier is doing when everyone is frozen in place, he could be freezing their thought processes, but he could also be creating a mass illusion for everyone involved. we don't know because it's never explained what he's doing. all we know for certain is that he can "make everyone freeze in place". When rogue asks in X-2, Xavier just says "i did it" and that's all.
so my theory still stands as a theory at least.

[Mordar]

We don't know exactly what Xavier is doing when everyone is frozen in place, he could be freezing their thought processes, but he could also be creating a mass illusion for everyone involved. we don't know because it's never explained what he's doing. all we know for certain is that he can "make everyone freeze in place". When rogue asks in X-2, Xavier just says "i did it" and that's all.
so my theory still stands as a theory at least.

I actually think we have been told that he is directly impacting the minds of the people nearby - we see things like clocks continue to move, the need to navigate around the people in the mall and airport - and while I understand that we need an easy visual representation of the characters operating outside the conscious thought/memory of those nearby, I think this was a horrible way to do it. I don't have a better solution, but this one makes it look like he willy-nilly messes with minds and bodies for personal convenience, and that's not a characterization I think really appropriate.

- M

[Tiki Snakes]

I actually think we have been told that he is directly impacting the minds of the people nearby - we see things like clocks continue to move, the need to navigate around the people in the mall and airport - and while I understand that we need an easy visual representation of the characters operating outside the conscious thought/memory of those nearby, I think this was a horrible way to do it. I don't have a better solution, but this one makes it look like he willy-nilly messes with minds and bodies for personal convenience, and that's not a characterization I think really appropriate.

- M

It's equally likely that Magneto and Him aren't even in that particular state and that he only ever messes with a single brain in that scene; Wolverine's. That's the scary thing about interacting with the most powerful telepath in the world.
How can you ever be sure you are seeing anything other than merely what he wants you to?

[Mordar]

It's equally likely that Magneto and Him aren't even in that particular state and that he only ever messes with a single brain in that scene; Wolverine's. That's the scary thing about interacting with the most powerful telepath in the world.
How can you ever be sure you are seeing anything other than merely what he wants you to?

That would certainly be my "preferred truth" in keeping with Prof. X's character, but I'm pretty sure in the earlier film he admits that he has "frozen" the bystanders. Now, assuming that memory is correct, he either manipulates all of those people or lies to the person he wants as a student...neither of which is a very good option.

It has been a while since I watched the earlier movies...how many times do we see the "freeze time" effect? Is it 3?

- M

[Tiki Snakes]

That would certainly be my "preferred truth" in keeping with Prof. X's character, but I'm pretty sure in the earlier film he admits that he has "frozen" the bystanders. Now, assuming that memory is correct, he either manipulates all of those people or lies to the person he wants as a student...neither of which is a very good option.

It has been a while since I watched the earlier movies...how many times do we see the "freeze time" effect? Is it 3?

- M

The point is, that both things are easily within his power to do and the only way you can ever be sure...is to ask him and trust the answer.

Simply by existing, Professor Xavier introduces a level of existential uncertainty to everything you experience.

[TheThan]

Here’s the museum scene where everyone gets frozen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwprCekqoBk

So we know that Xavier is doing it, we just don’t know the ins and outs of how he’s doing it. Considering the TV is still going, it’s a bit hard to determine who's mind(s) he's affecting.

Anyway the thing with dealing with any telepath, is well you never know if he/she’s messing with your mind.

[ThirdEmperor]

I don't necessarily think that superheroes getting power down/seriously injured to limit them in the big finale fight scene is a bad thing, but it is awfully overused these days. It's gotten to where it's become cheap, even predictable, because let's face it- The superhero genre is not the most innovative subsect of movies.

To those who say that this sort of thing is necessary, I'd suggest the following two favorites of mine- Dredd and The Avengers.

[MLai]

I don't see Xavier freezing ppl telepathically as something inherently immoral. He's using it so that bystanders won't freak out and cause a stampede with ppl trampled to death. As long as you the audience trusts that all he is doing is freezing ppl in place and nothing more, then it's no different from Superman stopping someone (from doing whatever) by gently but firmly putting a hand on his shoulder.
"GASP, Superman is using his super-strength on a law-abiding citizen for his personal convenience how dare he?!"

Just because Superman is interacting with your shoulder, and Xavier is interacting with your brain, makes no real difference as the intent is the same. How do you know Superman didn't just give you cancer by touching your shoulder? You don't.

[PlusSixPelican]

I'm going to propose a whole other reason for this, in two words; Effects. Budget.

If you really want to blow the socks off people with unnecessary moments of crazy, over-animated hoopla in the third act, cut your budget for special effects in the second act with a depower subplot! BRILLIANTS.

I'm largely kidding there, but that's why a lot of movies could be doing that.

I would like some of the more weird books done, like a standalone, three hour Superman: Red Son film. It will prolly never happen, but a girl can dream.

[TheThan]

I would like some of the more weird books done, like a standalone, three hour Superman: Red Son film. It will prolly never happen, but a girl can dream.

Old man Logan. must have this...

[Shyftir]

Simply by existing, Professor Xavier introduces a level of existential uncertainty to everything you experience.

So Xavier is Schrodinger's Mutant?

[Tiki Snakes]

So Xavier is Schrodinger's Mutant?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It's about the whole thing where you, as a person inside that universe can no longer be sure of anything because he could make you see, hear, smell, or even think anything he wants. Chances are at any point that he isn't, won't and wouldn't and from an out of universe perspective we can be sure a lot of the time, because we'll get extra information confirming how things actually are usually.

But people inside the setting have no such luxury, so they simply must accept on faith that the universe is ever as they perceive it and not simply whatever Xavier wants them to perceive.

It's almost exactly the opposite of the Schrodingers thing perhaps, thinking about it. The Schrodinger's thing says that the cat is, whilst unobserved, both dead or alive because he could be either and that he is only one of the two when we look see which one. On the other hand, Xavier is specifically doing or not doing something regardless of your ability to observe whether he is and if you are a person in the same setting as him you can never really be sure of your observation of him or anything else. It's like, by existing, Xavier turns the world into a Schrodinger's style thought experiment for everyone else in it.

I think I'm rambling now.

[jedipotter]

I still think power loss is most often lazy writing. It's just not a very creative solution since it has been used for like a million times. Is it too much to ask for both dramatic tension and actual superheroics at the same time?

It is not even lazy writing, it is the same writing. It is the problem where all writers are all in the same club. They all think alike. That is why you see the same stories over and over and over again.

I also see it come from the Superhero haters. Plenty of writers don't like Sci-fi or superhero stuff as, to them, it is just ''dumb kinds stuff.'' They want to write some amazing drama story that will change the world, not write a dumb, fluff kiddie story. So the easy thing to do is make the character normal, then at least 75% of the story is about a normal character, and the superhero hater can deal with that.

[Traab]

It is not even lazy writing, it is the same writing. It is the problem where all writers are all in the same club. They all think alike. That is why you see the same stories over and over and over again.

I also see it come from the Superhero haters. Plenty of writers don't like Sci-fi or superhero stuff as, to them, it is just ''dumb kinds stuff.'' They want to write some amazing drama story that will change the world, not write a dumb, fluff kiddie story. So the easy thing to do is make the character normal, then at least 75% of the story is about a normal character, and the superhero hater can deal with that.

That is sadly true. So many of the no power stories are built off of premade scripts with the names of the characters left blank.

Superman loses his power just as Doomsday arrives. After being totally dominated in the fight, Superman sinks into a depression that is only fixed by a rousing pep talk from lois lane At which point Superman decides to go back and fight Doomsday again even without his abilities. His refusal to give up magically triggers a return of his powers / gives his friends time to destroy whatever has sealed his powers away and he wins the battle. The End.

[Starbuck_II]

The reason I liked this movie, and was not fazed by the above cliche, is because I don't consider Logan to be a superhero.

He never once put on any kind of costume. Not even a nod to a costume element. He never made an inspirational speech, never said a catchphrase, and even "Bub" he only said once in the movie. This was more Kill Bill than any superhero movie.

The worst part of this movie, as well as most of the budget, all happened in the end scene. If all the Silver Samurai was, was Shigen (the middle-aged son) dressed in normal adamantium samurai armor without cybernetics of any kind, and with a heat sword so that he could have a "fair fight" with Logan... I would have been a happier camper with the movie ending right there.

Well, with his memory being what it is: he probably forget his catch phrase. :smallbiggrin:

[Spuddles]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so if someone else has clearly established this point...my apologies.

I think stories (whether the medium is a movie or comic) that have the hero at a disadvantage of some sort, whether it's power loss, a super powerful villain, etc, makes said story more compelling to a lot of us. We don't have super powers. Making the hero more human helps us identify with them more.

That's why, in part, heroes have secret identities. If they paraded around in costume all the time, and their "normal" lives were never shown, then we, as the audience wouldn't relate to them as well.

That's why, in my opinion, Spider-man is one of the top all time comic heroes. It isn't just because his powerset is cool, it's the human element of Peter Parker trying to juggle being a hero with living a life as a regular joe. That's a part of what makes his story so compelling.

That's just my two cents...

Except that the superhero genre is like 100 years old (or like 10,000 if you include stories like Heracles or Abraham & the Angel) and these cliches are almost as old. Superheroes need to take themselves seriously and use narrative structures that don't break verisimilitude instead of hackneyed plot structures so us plebes can somehow identify with Thor, god of thunder.

That's just lazy storytelling.

We relate to our heroes with their flaws. If I wanted to watch a generic action movie, I'd watch a Die Hard or something. Superhero stories are about heroes that shoot lasers out of their eyes, not about heroes that used to shoot lasers but can't because of a writers bad Plotonium.

[Eric Tolle]

So done movies did to male superheroes the same thing that's been done to female superheroes for decades, and NOW the fans are complaining? Look on the bright side; arty least your guys weren't stuffed in a fridge.

[Traab]

So done movies did to male superheroes the same thing that's been done to female superheroes for decades, and NOW the fans are complaining? Look on the bright side; arty least your guys weren't stuffed in a fridge.

Im sorry but I honestly dont know what you are saying here.

[ThirdEmperor]

So done movies did to male superheroes the same thing that's been done to female superheroes for decades, and NOW the fans are complaining? Look on the bright side; arty least your guys weren't stuffed in a fridge.

Much as I dislike the treatment of female superheroes and females in general in the comic book media, I gotta say, I don't really see how this particular trope is relevant to that?


Unless you mean superheroines getting captured and needing to be rescued, despite being powerful enough in their own right that they should be able to escape on their own?

[dromemc]

In the movie, he was in trouble because he forgot he can heal anything but he isn't super strong. He should have whirlwinded his blades to cut the arrows' lines.

I'm more interested in the ending.
Is that really Charles' back in his original body or was the fact that time stopped indicate it was a mental meeting and Charles is still in coma guy's body?

You guys obviously either didn't read that Chris Claremont story (note: Frank Miller was the artist, not the writer) or it's been too long since you've read it. Wolverine doesn't lose his powers. The story has nothing to do with that.

They almost tried to adapt that story for this movie, but ended up using nothing but the names of the characters and setting it in the same country.

http://www.shazam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the-essential-frank-miller.jpg

[BWR]

Eh, it can work. Like any other cliché, it's a cliché because something about it strikes a chord with a large number of people. Also like any other cliché, it can be done well or done poorly.

[Tyrant]

I'm more interested in the ending.
Is that really Charles' back in his original body or was the fact that time stopped indicate it was a mental meeting and Charles is still in coma guy's body?
The folks over on IMDB say that coma guy was originally meant to be Charles' twin brother, explaining how his new body would look identical. Or at least explaining it close enough for Hollywood science (not to be confused with real science)

[Legato Endless]

That is sadly true. So many of the no power stories are built off of premade scripts with the names of the characters left blank.

Superman loses his power just as Doomsday arrives. After being totally dominated in the fight, Superman sinks into a depression that is only fixed by a rousing pep talk from lois lane At which point Superman decides to go back and fight Doomsday again even without his abilities. His refusal to give up magically triggers a return of his powers / gives his friends time to destroy whatever has sealed his powers away and he wins the battle. The End.

The Doomsday storyline had other issues. Like Doomsday being a thinly veiled plot device to kill Superman, the implications of which do not in any way alter Superman's character later in the story after being resurrected, among other flaws.

[Traab]

The Doomsday storyline had other issues. Like Doomsday being a thinly veiled plot device to kill Superman, the implications of which do not in any way alter Superman's character later in the story after being resurrected, among other flaws.

I picked those names out of a hat, which was the actual point, you could easily put in any hero and one of his villains and make the exact same story. Thats what I was saying, that the "hero loses his power" story has been done to death, and when its done again, follows a fairly standard path that you can fill in the blanks with whatever license your studio currently owns.

[Thrawn183]

I'm just sick and tired of the attitude that a super hero without their powers is still a hero. I feel it makes these characters much more difficult to identify with.

I'd rather see some people smart enough to run for cover and just call in backup when they lose their powers.

[Traab]

The problem with that is, heroes tend to punch above their weight class on a regular basis. If they were the type to run and hide and call for backup they wouldnt be heroes. Half of the spiderman comics would involve him going, "Oh well, better call the fantastic four/avengers again, I certainly wont fight that guy!"

[Talakeal]

I'm just sick and tired of the attitude that a super hero without their powers is still a hero. I feel it makes these characters much more difficult to identify with.

I'd rather see some people smart enough to run for cover and just call in backup when they lose their powers.

If you are only going to do things whch are safe and fight villains who are weaker than you are you are not a hero, you are a bully.

[Dienekes]

If you are only going to do things whch are safe and fight villains who are weaker than you are you are not a hero, you are a bully.

I wouldn't go that far. You're still putting your time in to protect civilization and innocents and all that. You'd just be a rather cowardly do-gooder.

[HandofShadows]

Half of the spiderman comics would involve him going, "Oh well, better call the fantastic four/avengers again, I certainly wont fight that guy!"

I think your underestimating Spider Man's powers/abilities. And of the Super Heros put there, Spidey (Peter Parker) DOES have a habit of going and getting help when faced with something big.

[Traab]

I think your underestimating Spider Man's powers/abilities. And of the Super Heros put there, Spidey (Peter Parker) DOES have a habit of going and getting help when faced with something big.

He is also just as known for fighting his rogues gallery 6 at a time solo when even one of them is a credible threat to him. Does any solo hero do that very often but him? Hell, isnt Venom alone like Spiderman x3? Faster stronger, same skills, and he gets immunity to spider sense, which is arguably the single most powerful ability parker has? Yeah he has a couple weaknesses that offset that, but still.

[Ravian]

I'm just sick and tired of the attitude that a super hero without their powers is still a hero. I feel it makes these characters much more difficult to identify with.

I'd rather see some people smart enough to run for cover and just call in backup when they lose their powers.

Wouldn't be very interesting. The super is only a part of the equation, the hero is the much greater part. If everyone played it safe than it wouldn't really be much fun to watch them win. We like to read/watch heroes (even if you make the argument that it's all about the power fantasy) always have been since the epic legends, and if Beowulf decided that he'd send a large band of warriors to take on Grendel "To play it safe." it would make for a less interesting story.

A hero is supposed to push against their limits and face overwhelming odds and obstacles, otherwise there's really no conflict (and thus no story) if he just walks though with no serious challenge.

[TheThan]

The difference between a hero and a super hero is that a super hero does the things normal people, even heroes can’t or won’t do.

Would you physically intervene and try to save someone from being beaten to death by five armed men? Nope, you’d call the cops and then get out of there, that's a sensible and reasonable thing anyone would do But a superhero would rush in there and rescue that guy and probably beat up the aggressors too.
why? not only because he has the power to actually do it, but also because he puts others before himself.

[Cheesegear]

The super is only a part of the equation, the hero is the much greater part. If everyone played it safe than it wouldn't really be much fun to watch them win.

I'm always reminded of the scene in Captain America when, at the boot camp (i.e. he doesn't have his powers yet), Steve jumps on the grenade. He is not super, he has no powers, and he more than likely would have died by taking a grenade to the chest.

The thing is, people actually do do this IRL.

[Devonix]

The difference between a hero and a super hero is that a super hero does the things normal people, even heroes can’t or won’t do.

Would you physically intervene and try to save someone from being beaten to death by five armed men? Nope, you’d call the cops and then get out of there, that's a sensible and reasonable thing anyone would do But a superhero would rush in there and rescue that guy and probably beat up the aggressors too.
why? not only because he has the power to actually do it, but also because he puts others before himself.

No this is what a Hero does. A superhero does this on a larger scale though beyond what is humanly possible.

[Ravian]

No this is what a Hero does. A superhero does this on a larger scale though beyond what is humanly possible.

Very true, that's why it's the hero that's the important part in a superhero story. The powers certainly give things some spice, but if he's not a hero then there's not much reason to root for him.

Marvel's The irredeemable Antman stories are an exception about a perfectly despicable individual who does heroics as is convenient for him. (and generally just runs away, uses them for profit or watches women shower) The thing is we generally don't root for him when he does non-heroic things, we're mainly just mad at him for abusing his powers (though the fact that most of his enemies are worse than him is a plus). It's only when he starts to learn from his mistakes and becomes more of a hero in the process that we start really rooting for the guy.

Heroes are the bread and butter of our stories, a character that decides to sit things out when things get too hard is just unimpressive.

[TheThan]

I would disagree. A hero might stop a single person trying to mug or injure another person. But when the odds are really stacked against him, he’s not going to intervene when he can call the police and let them handle it. Even a trained martial artist or fighter would think twice about engaging five armed individuals at once. Most people know their limitations.



Btw that situation I mentioned is from personal experience (no I wasn’t beating someone up, nor was I beaten up).

[Ravian]

I would disagree. A hero might stop a single person trying to mug or injure another person. But when the odds are really stacked against him, he’s not going to intervene when he can call the police and let them handle it. Even a trained martial artist or fighter would think twice about engaging five armed individuals at once. Most people know their limitations.



Btw that situation I mentioned is from personal experience (no I wasn’t beating someone up, nor was I beaten up).

Well sure but that's when there are options to get help. Most stories about heroes are about individuals who save the day when the normal authorities can't. That's why Batman goes out to save the day, because the police in Gotham can't do what he can do (or are too corrupt to do it)

Obviously this falls apart a little when you consider the scope of most comic universes, realistically everyone would call in Superman when things looked bad for them. But in those same universes those other heroes exist because Superman can't be everywhere at once.

I remember one Spiderman story where he first faced the Juggernaut, he needed to stop him from reaching his ally and after a few failed attempts to slow his progress did go looking for other heroes to help. The X-men, the fantastic four, Doctor Strange, the Avengers, all dealing with their own problems. He was on his own, but he was the only one who could try, and eventually he succeeded through wits and cunning. A superhero deals with a situation because they have the ability and the willingness to help, even if they lose their powers, they're not useless because that drive is still there.

That's the idea in the whole superheroes losing their powers. Even if you don't have incredible abilities, no one is completely useless if they have the will to help in some way. And that's the most important part of being a hero.

[lunar2]

you know, what pissed me off wasn't wolverine losing his regen (in the old comics and cartoons he didn't heal that fast anyway. really bad injuries could actually put him in bed a day or two), it was him losing his claws. regen can be replaced, that adamantium is a one time deal, and is a more visible part of who he is than his regen would ever be.

[TheThan]

I think they’ve gone both ways.

It used to be his healing factor was keeping him alive from the adamantium that's been grafted to his skeleton; which is how they’ve accounted for his slow healing factor in the early days. When his skeleton the adamantium was removed (the first time), his healing factor didn’t have to constantly work to keep him alive and he could regenerate MUCH faster.

Then somewhere along the way they’ve decided that his healing factor is actually adaptive; growing more powerful as he’s sustained more and more injuries over the years. After decades of him fighting and being injured his healing factor has been slowly growing more and more powerful until now he heals nearly instantaneously from pretty much any injury. It's a good way of explaining away the power creep.

Since they change things around depending on the current writer, I don’t know what the most recent stuff is on wolverine, but that’s how it used to be.


As far as The Wolverine movie; it’s fairly clear… well spoilers….

It’s fairly clear that the thingies the viper put in his heart didn’t turn his powers completely off, merely weakened his healing to make him stoppable. After all he gets shot multiple times and it barely slows him down (even getting shot twice at very close range with a shotgun by the yakuza in the monk robes).

[Anteros]

He is also just as known for fighting his rogues gallery 6 at a time solo when even one of them is a credible threat to him. Does any solo hero do that very often but him? Hell, isnt Venom alone like Spiderman x3? Faster stronger, same skills, and he gets immunity to spider sense, which is arguably the single most powerful ability parker has? Yeah he has a couple weaknesses that offset that, but still.

He typically tries to get help in those situations though. It's just never available because plot.

[Coidzor]

If you are only going to do things whch are safe and fight villains who are weaker than you are you are not a hero, you are a bully.

That'd imply that weak villains wouldn't deserve being thwarted. :smalltongue:

[Vknight]

Well it all depends on application

A hero whose powers make the world his prison, would love to be able to turn them on and off.
But getting them stuck on, the off setting can show how much he needs them and the world needs him
Well them getting stuck on, the on setting can show how his normalcy gives a centering perspective to make him still be human

The story can be done well. It can be done poorly

Act of God is a bad story
The time Superman loses his powers for a year is a good story

The thing is the story can't be formulaic it has too be about the stark difference and mean something. Why do they need their powers. How can they still be a hero without them, can they be a hero without them? Its all questions of the heroes identity

[Traab]

He typically tries to get help in those situations though. It's just never available because plot.

True, but, as a random example, lets say the sinister six show up and start tearing apart a random district full of nuns, orphanages, and puppy stores. Spiderman is not going to ignore that and go try to see if the fantastic four are free to help him out. He will dive in there and try his best to fight against overwhelming odds to save those orphan puppy nuns. It doesnt matter that he is outmatched, he will do it anyways. He knows this is going to hurt.... alot. But that doesnt stop him. AFTER the fight is over, and they escape or whatever, he would probably try to get some help, but only because the immediate danger has passed.

[Talya]

Superhero stories where they lose their powers are always stories I do not like.

[Ravens_cry]

I am sure it can be done well, I am sure it has been done well, but, dammit, if the only way you can preserve drama is by taking away their powers, maybe you shouldn't have given the character less setting shattering powers to begin with. Or maybe you need to change the setting.
Personally, I like to see a fairly limited power set and see where you can go with that, forcing the character, and the writer, to get creative.

[Traab]

I think the real problem is tradition. It has become traditional to setup every superhero movie to be a trilogy, and a lot follow a generic path. movie 1 is the origin and we see the hero first learn the magical art of ass kickery. Movie 2 is often the downer film where the hero realizes being the good guy plays havoc on his life and he wants to live a normal one, only to learn that he wasnt meant to be normal after all. Movie 3 is often the one where the hero gets knocked down a few rungs, and has to learn a valuable lesson.

The main problem is, the power loss one is so overdone, and so formulaic that even though it IS a good story, and can be an awesome way to create more of a complete character, it almost always follows the same steps of the other thousand hero films out there so its boring. Its like reading those harlequinn romance novels. Once you have read one, you have read them all. Sure some of the details change, but the message and path the story takes remains the same. Even the best story gets old eventually. Honestly, I think thats why I stopped reading the redwall abbey books.

[warty goblin]

I think the real problem is tradition. It has become traditional to setup every superhero movie to be a trilogy, and a lot follow a generic path. movie 1 is the origin and we see the hero first learn the magical art of ass kickery. Movie 2 is often the downer film where the hero realizes being the good guy plays havoc on his life and he wants to live a normal one, only to learn that he wasnt meant to be normal after all. Movie 3 is often the one where the hero gets knocked down a few rungs, and has to learn a valuable lesson.

The main problem is, the power loss one is so overdone, and so formulaic that even though it IS a good story, and can be an awesome way to create more of a complete character, it almost always follows the same steps of the other thousand hero films out there so its boring. Its like reading those harlequinn romance novels. Once you have read one, you have read them all. Sure some of the details change, but the message and path the story takes remains the same. Even the best story gets old eventually. Honestly, I think thats why I stopped reading the redwall abbey books.

We are talking about an extremely narrow set of genre fiction here; a category extremely focused on delivering somewhat different renderings of the same set of story beats. Originality is really not the casus belli of the material, a point that should pretty much go without saying in the case of superhero movies based on comic book characters.

[Traab]

We are talking about an extremely narrow set of genre fiction here; a category extremely focused on delivering somewhat different renderings of the same set of story beats. Originality is really not the casus belli of the material, a point that should pretty much go without saying in the case of superhero movies based on comic book characters.

Thats true, and thats why the other parts of the trilogy normally work better. You see, every super hero has his own powers, his own setting, and his own unique bad guys. This makes the introduction and ass kickery fun and exciting. However, clark kent without his powers isnt very different from peter parker without his powers who isnt that different from john stewart without his powers. The "normal life" they want isnt very different either, nor is their eventual realization. Thats why that type of movie feels like such a flop. The parts that make each entrant of this narrow genre unique are removed and all you get is the same old, same old.

[Ravens_cry]

Peter Parker without his powers is usually a student, sometimes even a teenager. Clark Kent however is a reporter, a full blown adult with adult responsibilities and a job. I'd say they have the potential to be very different people, powers or no powers.

[Aedilred]

Thats true, and thats why the other parts of the trilogy normally work better. You see, every super hero has his own powers, his own setting, and his own unique bad guys. This makes the introduction and ass kickery fun and exciting. However, clark kent without his powers isnt very different from peter parker without his powers who isnt that different from john stewart without his powers. The "normal life" they want isnt very different either, nor is their eventual realization. Thats why that type of movie feels like such a flop. The parts that make each entrant of this narrow genre unique are removed and all you get is the same old, same old.
The series I think managed this part of the trilogy structure reasonably well was the (first) X-men trilogy. With X-Men, the ensemble casting means that the team can lose a substantial part of their collective "superpowers" (their telepath, their commander) but they are all still individuals with cool abilities. We were able to see what they'd do on their own initiative without a real leader, which gave us more of a look at their characters without having to take a hit in production.

But while the nature of the superheroes is part of it, you have to give the writers a lot of credit too. One of the best scenes in X-2 (imo) is the sequence at Iceman's house where it rapidly becomes apparent that none of them have a clue what to do - this was a situation that the Professor could easily have defused, but they're totally out of their depth. They've been effectively "de-powered"- when Pyro proceeds to blow a load of things up, it's because of that rather than despite it. Throughout the film we probably see the characters use their powers more in a response to being stripped of their main assets, rather than less; it's still visually and viscerally a superhero film, while providing all the same drama that the power-down usually brings.

Iron Man 2 dealt with a similar-but-different situation reasonably well, but the third film (like the third X-Men) was a disappointingly conventional superhero film with many of the same flaws.

[Traab]

Peter Parker without his powers is usually a student, sometimes even a teenager. Clark Kent however is a reporter, a full blown adult with adult responsibilities and a job. I'd say they have the potential to be very different people, powers or no powers.

He is also a freelance photographer for the daily bugle. Which is... disturbingly close now that i think about it. Peter Parker lives on his own, holds down a job, wants to be in a relationship. Clark Kent lives on his own, holds down a job, wants to be in a relationship.

[Synovia]

It has slowly become SO overused that it is effectively a cliche. Hell, I can even tell you the formula step by step:


Hero loses powers for whatever reason.
Hero goes through depression because they think the powers made them Heroes.
Pep talk convinces them they were a Hero, powers or not.


It isn't just bad, it's painful.

You've just described the heroic journey, which is the basis for about 90% of fiction.

Hero runs into obstacle he can't overcome. Hero quests/meditates/studies to become stronger. Hero overcomes obstacle.

The problem with superheros is they're already ridiculously strong, so the options are to either weaken them, so they can re-ascend to where they were, or just keep ratcheting up the powers, and end up with guys throwing planets at each other.

Or you can do the batman/cellphone thing which is to give the hero another power, and then take it away/have him give it away, which really is just weakening him between stories instead of during the story. Same thing.

[Ravens_cry]

He is also a freelance photographer for the daily bugle. Which is... disturbingly close now that i think about it. Peter Parker lives on his own, holds down a job, wants to be in a relationship. Clark Kent lives on his own, holds down a job, wants to be in a relationship.
Depends on the 'verse, but, often, Peter does not live on his own, he lives with his Aunt. And in some 'verses, Clark is even married. Sure, you can play them as similar, but my point they can also be very different.

[Coidzor]

Peter Parker without his powers is usually a student, sometimes even a teenager. Clark Kent however is a reporter, a full blown adult with adult responsibilities and a job. I'd say they have the potential to be very different people, powers or no powers.

Peter Parker without his powers... I don't know if he'd even have been able to get any work with the Bugle in that case, though someone more steeped in Marvel Lore would be able to answer that one for us. Depending upon how common throughout his iterations the interest in science is, he might just become some kind of scientist, maybe even a low-level super scientist?

Clark Kent... To some extent he might become more of a male counterpart to Lois? Sort of hard to imagine what path he'd have actually taken without les powers in the first place though... And I imagine that also depends upon whether we keep the Kryptonian origin and whether that involves any sort of super science that he can harness.

[Traab]

Depends on the 'verse, but, often, Peter does not live on his own, he lives with his Aunt. And in some 'verses, Clark is even married. Sure, you can play them as similar, but my point they can also be very different.

True, but using the movie trilogies which have the whole power loss in the second movie story, they are very similar. Peter moves out into his ratty little apartment, clark lives... I dunno, somewhere, I dont recall if we ever see his place. Both work for the local big paper, both have a love interest that their secret lives cause problems with. Only real difference is mary jane isnt one of peters co workers. Oh yeah, both are kinda nerdy out of costume.

Whats truly scary is that superman losing his powers actually makes sense. Apparently peters powers are based off his confidence and how much he loves his abilities? I dunno, it was kind of vague really. You would think the potential to turn his powers off and on like he did in the second film would warrant a little research and practice on his part.


Peter Parker without his powers... I don't know if he'd even have been able to get any work with the Bugle in that case, though someone more steeped in Marvel Lore would be able to answer that one for us. Depending upon how common throughout his iterations the interest in science is, he might just become some kind of scientist, maybe even a low-level super scientist?

Clark Kent... To some extent he might become more of a male counterpart to Lois? Sort of hard to imagine what path he'd have actually taken without les powers in the first place though... And I imagine that also depends upon whether we keep the Kryptonian origin and whether that involves any sort of super science that he can harness.

There is no way peter would be working for the bugle. No spiderman means no pictures for him to grab regularly. In the films he basically fell into that job because he had the bright idea to setup his camera and try to sell the pics. Chances are good though that he would be a scientist. That came up in his second film too, guys like otto and apparently doctor conners both said he had potential but was "lazy" due to him skipping class all the time to fight crime and such. Heck, he might even have ended up working for one of the big names like reed or stark.

As for Clark, there is no way to tell what kind of career he would have had if he was human. I mean, thats such a huge change to everything he ever was that there is no way to predict. He would likely be the local high school quarterback who went on to take over his fathers farm, maybe settled down with lana.

[Kitten Champion]

Whats truly scary is that superman losing his powers actually makes sense. Apparently peters powers are based off his confidence and how much he loves his abilities? I dunno, it was kind of vague really. You would think the potential to turn his powers off and on like he did in the second film would warrant a little research and practice on his part.


Well, it was psychosomatic. Which is still a vague excuse admittedly, but presumably his powers were always still there - they're written into his genetics - but he created a mental wall against them through years of subconscious stress.

[Traab]

Well, it was psychosomatic. Which is still a vague excuse admittedly, but presumably his powers were always still there - they're written into his genetics - but he created a mental wall against them through years of subconscious stress.

But even so, he was unable to stick to walls, he had no spider sense, he lost his strength. That would honestly be the kind of thing I would look into if I were Pete. Being able to activate, or at the very least, avoid DEactivating his powers could come in handy from time to time.

[TheThan]

I see it like this: Clark Kent is a man that helps others because he wants to and he feels it’s obviously the right thing to do. Peter Parker does not, he helps others not because he necessarily wants to, but because he’s obligated to because he has super powers.

Just look at their origin stories, Peter Parker has to be hurt by the death of Uncle Ben in order to learn that he should use his powers to help others and generally do the right thing. Clark doesn’t, he already knows what the right thing to do is and wants to help people. Peter (and his readers) get beat over the head with the Great power comes great responsibility idiom, superman (and his readers) do not because it’s a lesson he’s already learned.

If Clark Kent didn’t have super powers, he would become a fire fighter, or a police officer (sheriff of Smallville) or something else that helps others. While Peter Parker would not, he would become a science major and probably an inventor of some sort working for Ozcorp or Stark Industries or some such.

The reason why is that this is a lesson that Clark Has already been taught, probably since he was a small child. Peter is told that same lesson but ignores it until it gets nailed home for him by uncle Ben’s death.

[Anteros]

True, but, as a random example, lets say the sinister six show up and start tearing apart a random district full of nuns, orphanages, and puppy stores. Spiderman is not going to ignore that and go try to see if the fantastic four are free to help him out. He will dive in there and try his best to fight against overwhelming odds to save those orphan puppy nuns. It doesnt matter that he is outmatched, he will do it anyways. He knows this is going to hurt.... alot. But that doesnt stop him. AFTER the fight is over, and they escape or whatever, he would probably try to get some help, but only because the immediate danger has passed.

I think it would be more in character for him to make a quick call and leave a message or something. "Hey, I'm fighting 6 super-villains down in the puppy and nun district. If you guys could get here before I die that'd be swell." You're right that he'd go in anyway though. Any of the big name hero characters would.

[Traab]

I think it would be more in character for him to make a quick call and leave a message or something. "Hey, I'm fighting 6 super-villains down in the puppy and nun district. If you guys could get here before I die that'd be swell." You're right that he'd go in anyway though. Any of the big name hero characters would.

"On a side note, whose bright idea was it to build a district for orphan puppy nuns anyways?"

[TheThan]

Urban crawl. They just started moving into the area.
A few puppy nuns moved in, and then the next thing anybody knew, the whole area was filled with them.

[Coidzor]

Urban crawl. They just started moving into the area.
A few puppy nuns moved in, and then the next thing anybody knew, the whole area was filled with them.

Really it sounds like the Sinister Six were doing them and the area a favor by helping cull the population before it reached critical mass.

[Wardog]

Well, it was psychosomatic. Which is still a vague excuse admittedly, but presumably his powers were always still there - they're written into his genetics - but he created a mental wall against them through years of subconscious stress.

So all he needed was Kamina to punch him in the face?

[Kris Strife]

Part of how Parker got the Bugle Job was Jameson feeling sorry for him, at least in the comics, though old JJJ would never admit to it.

As for Clark, he became a reporter so he'd be one of the first to hear about emergencies and be able to help /and/ because he knows that sometimes a reporter can change things Superman can't. He won a Pulitzer in some continuities.

Also, the career similarities are semi-intentional as part of Spidey's inspiration was Clark actually having to balance a personal life on top of being Superman, and have responsibilities when the cape is off. Spidey was made a student to appeal to younger readers, and the difficulties come from him having to split effort between Super Heroing and being Peter Parker, and not having a Kryptonian super brain.

[Traab]

Part of how Parker got the Bugle Job was Jameson feeling sorry for him, at least in the comics, though old JJJ would never admit to it.

As for Clark, he became a reporter so he'd be one of the first to hear about emergencies and be able to help /and/ because he knows that sometimes a reporter can change things Superman can't. He won a Pulitzer in some continuities.

Also, the career similarities are semi-intentional as part of Spidey's inspiration was Clark actually having to balance a personal life on top of being Superman, and have responsibilities when the cape is off. Spidey was made a student to appeal to younger readers, and the difficulties come from him having to split effort between Super Heroing and being Peter Parker, and not having a Kryptonian super brain.

Well that and not being able to move faster than a speeding bullet. At best, given a straight line to work with, he could move at an appreciable portion of terminal velocity. So lets say around 100 mhp. If both heard of a bank robbery in progress at the same time, from the same part of town, superman could excuse himself to go to the bathroom, fly down there, take care of it, and fly back, while peter is still trying to finish changing into costume. That gives clark WAY more leeway on doing both. And yes, a large part of it is also the narrative. In spiderman, his difficulty in juggling his hero life with his personal life is a big part of the story, but its not usually a big part of superman. I just like to use a scientific explanation for the heck of it.

And wait a sec, you mean dc comics actually exist in the marvel world? Thats kinda cool.

[Kitten Champion]

So all he needed was Kamina to punch him in the face?

Don't we all?


In spiderman, his difficulty in juggling his hero life with his personal life is a big part of the story, but its not usually a big part of superman.

Well... much of his oeuvre is expressing a skepticism about heroism. That a man will use his abilities to benefit others without ulterior motivations or reward is something Spider-Man comics continually affirms by questioning it. His life is full of disincentive to being a hero, and maybe if he made the wrong decision his life would have taken a darker path, but in the end he's still Spider-Man.

This is something they did very well in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, where Peter made the choice to help others at genuine cost to himself, and yet you understood why.



And wait a sec, you mean dc comics actually exist in the marvel world? Thats kinda cool.

I think Marvel and DC comics both exists in the Marvel Universe. Marvel, if I recall correctly, has a meta-role of doing comics based on in-universe heroes who've had their likeness rights sold to them. DC exists because I've seen a few Batman/Superman references characters have made.

[TheThan]

I was always under the impression that DC was a comic book company in the Marvelverse, and Marvel was a comic book company in the DCverse.

that's why aunt may tells Peter he's not Superman, and the Punisher tell the Yakuza boss he was sent by Batman. (bet nobody else saw the Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie from back in '89)

so basically DC characters read about Marvel characters, and Marvel characters read about DC characters. which is actually an amusing way of saying "our characters are real, theirs aren't."

[The New Bruceski]

I can understand why this trope might bug somebody, but at the same time I am an absolute sucker fanboy when they're pulled off. Steve Rogers diving on a grenade, Iron Man 3 turning into an episode of MacGyver as Stark stops seeing the suit as the actual superhero, that's why those movies are some of my favorites. Meanwhile Thor is just a dumb brute who hits things, even when he's depowered.

[Devonix]

Well that and not being able to move faster than a speeding bullet. At best, given a straight line to work with, he could move at an appreciable portion of terminal velocity. So lets say around 100 mhp. If both heard of a bank robbery in progress at the same time, from the same part of town, superman could excuse himself to go to the bathroom, fly down there, take care of it, and fly back, while peter is still trying to finish changing into costume. That gives clark WAY more leeway on doing both. And yes, a large part of it is also the narrative. In spiderman, his difficulty in juggling his hero life with his personal life is a big part of the story, but its not usually a big part of superman. I just like to use a scientific explanation for the heck of it.

And wait a sec, you mean dc comics actually exist in the marvel world? Thats kinda cool.

The difference though is that Peter may just hear about that one bank robbery on the radio or somewhere else. Clark will hear every crime happening in the city... All at once. That Bank Robbery, that Mugging, that Suicide attempt. All at once and hearing them and having to weigh in on where to go.

[Shinken]

Wolverine has always "insta healed" in the comics. The rate of healing depends on the writer of course and when the story takes place.

This is not true.
Wolverine didn't even have a healing factor is his first appearances. It was something they came up to justify why he would be beaten and then get back up later. In his first X-men stories, Wolverine was the guy who ignored teamwork and tried to take on the bad guy by himself. His narrative role was stablishing that whatever threat they were facing was too big to be solved by any X-man alone, so they needed teamwork. The whole healing factor thing only came into being to justify that, after people started asking "how the hell did he survive that".
In his first solo series, for example, his healing factor is a lot weaker than "insta-healing". He needs to rest to recover from bullet wonds.

[BeerMug Paladin]

What do you all think of this trend in movies of having superheroes lose their powers and being forced to confront their own mortality?
I don't generally care for superhero movies, but my first thought is that it's a simple plot to write. All a movie audience has to understand for it to work is the basis for the loss. It doesn't require demonstrating the mechanics of how the powers work, or why the villain can beat them with other powers. Without their super (whatever), it's easy to understand why they feel they can't beat any arbitrary villain. Not that an actual hero wouldn't do something to inconvenience a villain anyway (Go Emp!), but it's an easy sell most of the time.

Also, it's worth noting that at one point, a heroic story is supposed to show the hero at their lowest point before the rise against adversity and eventual win. Depowering is an easy way to get the hero to that low point. It requires no thought and lots of people love writing no-thought action movies.