Oh no you didn’t.
I’m not sure who’d actually win, but that’s a battle I would pay good money to see. :mwahaha:
The Watchmen would destroy everyone
Well I haven’t seen the film, yet. But I do want to go and see. I’ve wanted to since I first heard about it, but I’ll just have to wait, since a little thing called LIFE is getting in my way at the moment.
Uh, no they don’t. The whole point of the JLA is to try to prove that absolute power does NOT corrupt absolutely. While it can be argued they’re too soft at times (at least most of the Authority’s enemies don’t come back!) they know that if they just went around killing people they’d just make things worse in the end (a fact the A is starting to realize, in their latest stories.)
Dude, you’re missing one of the crucial points made by The Authority. It’s not a question of the corruptibility of power. Power is by its very nature “corrupt” merely by the fact that you hold it over anyone or someone or everyone else. The JLA’s ideals of justice or goodness notwithstanding, they hold arbitrary power over the rest of the planet. In fact, the very function of the JLA’s natural status-quoism results in the reinforcement of the injust actions and natures of whatever groups are in charge on Earth, the governments and corporations and other superheroes/villains. Furthermore the JLA presumes their views to be “just” and thus act on it, without really acknowledging the possibility that they could be wrong. What The Authority does differently is this following internal dialogue:
-Do we hold absolute power? Yes.
-Do we have ideas on how to change the planet? Yes.
-Can we be stopped? No.
-Are we still capable and going to act independent of the moral quality of our opinions or actions? Yes.
-Then let’s act on it.
I mean, this may only be my thesis subject and my Foucault research paper seeping in, but that’s how I see it. And no I think the JLA would win, simply on the strength of Superman’s and Batman’s will, since they are the two greatest characters ever conceived. Don’t even bring up what writers after Ellis/Millar have done to The Authority. Their deconstructionism is precisely what The Authority are combatting, and I don’t even consider their stuff as part of the legitimate Authority canon, even if it may be occasionally well-written/drawn.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it also rocks absolutely!
guh. Power is corruption. You don’t corrupt it nor does it corrupt you. It simply is corrupt. What matters is facing that and accepting that.
it may or may not rock absolutely
I disagree with you there Merl, I don’t think power is corruption by itself, although I believe that human nature is very easily corrupted by power. In fact, the JLA and The A are two sides of the same Power Fantasy: The JLA has godlike heroes that protect the World but that we know will never turn against us because of their unfailing morality, something most of us wish were true in real life. The A, on the other hand, represents our secret desires that we could freely unleash our anger at the world and the same time solve our problems in a direct and simple way. This is why a JLA/A crossover wouldn’t work- whose philosophy would be accepted as the winner? It would disappoint the fans of at least one of the group’s followers. Not to mention that since they belong to different companies, there would have to be some accord that neither group be shown as inferior to the other. It wouldn’t truly be the logic-based fight most of us would want to see (I have to admit, for example, that Midnighter could possibly beat the crap out of Batman, judging from the things I’ve seen him do, but that would leave the Batman fans unhappy. See the problem?)
And another point that could be made to counter the corruption of power, is that of responsibility: if you have the power to fix up the world but end up not using it because of personal reasons (such as your morals) wouldn’t that mean that you would BE responsible for what happens as a result of your non-intervention? For example, why doesn’t Superman disarm the armies of the World, especially of nuclear weapons? Because he thinks he doesn’t have the right to make choices for mankind? I wonder how would he feel if those weapons were used and caused mass destruction he could’ve prevented? See the point?
And my apologies for derailing the thread. I didn’t expect that the the whole Authority business would prove so popular here. I’ll quit now, at least until someone starts an Authority thread.
They’d have done it thirty-five minutes ago.
Are we not all meant to be free and equal? Therefore, any system, no matter its intentions or benefits, if it involves the assertion of one or many against one or many is itself an act of power. And since power is a denial of human freedom/equality the action is corrupt. This exists whether or not it’s Hitler or Superman running the show, or whether the world is better with or without The Authority. I think your analysis of the two sides is possible, although you’re not fully understanding the concept of The Authority. It has nothing to do with some sort of psychological unleashing of anger. What did I tell you about leaving postmodernism out of this discussion They’re about the frank appraisal of the immorality of power and motives. They know they’re the most powerful, they know they can’t be stopped, and they’re going to tell you this while acting. This means that they act without hiding behind pretensions of justice or sovereignty. They simply act to change the world as how they see fit. If anyone disagrees with how the world is changing, they’re welcome to try and stop The Authority.
The case of responsibility is something interesting for someone like, Spider-Man, who has a lot of personal sins he needs to atone for. But Superman’s “responsibility” is to improve the world to the best of his ability. By sitting on his hands he’s either at best slowing human progress or at worst, helping the oppressors. In general though I see your point about Superman supporting my argument more than yours
The point therefore is that if The Authority is capable of deciding their own course of action independent of all the chains holding humanity, then we all can too. Perhaps not on their scale, but within the scale of our own abilities.
He does so in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. But his action brought about Nuclear Man and much nonsense.
Merl, I could answer your points (even thought it seems we’re drifting from comics into politics) but I just don’t want to continue derailing a thread. Why don’t you start an Authority thread? I’ll be happy to post there.
So… err… is Trinity any good?
Trinity is awesome. Changing the subject isn’t derailment
Nope. For what it’s worth, I’m enjoying reading your little debate.
I give my vote to the Authority, between those two.
As for Blade Trinity: The acting sucked, except King, who was indeed hilarious. The action scenes were pretty cool. I’d give it a 6/10. It could have been done a LOT better.