By In Stuff

The PosCast Episode 6 — Superheroes

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”50″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Michael and Joe create a new segment specially designed to shorten the PosCast, and then incoherently draft superheroes for way too long. Topics covered include the incompetence of Dan Snyder, the uselessness of Aquaman, the lack of restraint of the Superman creators and what kind of sports fan Dr. Manhattan would be.

Check out this episode!

20 Responses to The PosCast Episode 6 — Superheroes

  1. Dark Side of the Mood says:

    Unbelievable. Third round and
    Spider-Man is still on the board. You guys would be fired before you got out of training camp.

    • DB says:

      Agreed. On my board there is no way you take him any later than the first round. And as Rob says below, they seemed to base 90% of their research on the old Super Friends (horrible but cheesy good fun that does not hold up compared to all the new shows) and Aquaman is real tough guy (would not take in the top 5 but he is no joke). My kids are big into the Avengers and Justice League (cartoon shows, not the movies) and these shows are so much better than our super hero cartoons, it is not funny. Actually have gotten me into the characters way more than the movies and make me think about actually buying comics for the first time. Joe, check them out in all your free time that I know you do not have.

  2. cbthepoet says:

    I wrote a piece on the subject of native american logos, chief wahoo in particular. Would love to hear your thoughts!

  3. Joe – I know that the draft part of the Poscast is supposed to be light hearted fun but would it have killed you to have done 5-10 minutes of research on each of the heroes you picked? You both got some very basic facts about characters’ powers, back story and history wrong. A half hour on Wikipedia would have been enough for you to talk about the characters somewhat intelligently. One of the reasons I enjoy your writing and Poscasts is that you are always prepared. I couldn’t help but feel you were lazy this time.

  4. Ed says:

    Why do you guys feel like you need to trim down the length of the Poscast? I enjoyed listening the two of you start talking about some topic and then naturally progress into 15 other things during the two hour long Poscasts.

    That’s way more fun/organic than trying to limit it to 10 minutes of conversation.

  5. rrdevine says:

    Joe – you missed the huge fantastic amazingly enviable Captain America power: the healing factor. His body heals quickly and completely, from all sorts of injuries. As a middle-aged guy with back problems, failing eyesight, and gray hair, this is incredibly appealing to me. I would love to just be able to sleep through the night without pain; so an inexhaustible healing factor is more appealing to me then being able to fly.

  6. John Gale says:

    I couldn’t believe Joe picked Superman with his first pick. Then again, I guess we don’t know what we’re supposed to be drafting. Is it the best bodyguard or the most interesting superhero? If it’s the former, he can be justified at first overall. If it’s the latter, he should be undrafted.

    For the record, Schur did the right thing by taking Batman first overall. But Thor over Spiderman seems like a Bowie-over-Jordan level disaster. And then Joe took the Hulk, which is even worse. Dr. Manhattan feels like a reach at No. 5. I feel like one of the X-Men should have gone by now. Most people would take Wolverine. I think I’d actually go with Professor X.

    And the Wonderwoman pick prompts the cameras to cut to Spiderman suffering miserably in the green room. Speaking of Wonderwoman, her original weakness was that she was rendered powerless if she was tied up by a man. Yeah. And this went on until the late 70s. I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about Aquaman, but I don’t think he should go seventh overall.

    Spiderman falling to the fourth round will put an Aaron Rodgers-level chip on his shoulder for the rest of his career. I’ll give Schur credit for taking Professor X with his fifth-round pick. As I said, I probably would have taken him fourth of fifth overall, but better late than never. Joe’s final pick of Captain America at 10th overall seems like a reasonable pick to me.

    • Dark Side of the Mood says:

      Spider-Man is the Tom Brady of this draft (in hindsight drafted waaaay too low) while Superman is the Michael Olowokandi. Poor Joe, cut loose from his GM job because of one very poor draft choice. I hope he can find something else to help make ends meet.

  7. Spider-man wouldn’t even be on my board. I would take Mermaidman over him.
    Actually, here’s what my board would be:
    1. Batman

  8. cbutcher1547 says:

    Why would you want to shorten the Poscast? I wish you made it even longer.

  9. Reagan says:

    Joe and Mike,

    First off, I agree with your stances on the Washington and Cleveland names/mascots. In fact, I’m surprised your didn’t go farther and address the Cleveland team nickname, Indians, a term also considered offensive by many people (myself included).

    But that’s not what really concerns me. I want to address a rhetorical device mentioned in the opening discussion. Mike used an argument that can be called the “losing/winning side of history” argument. It goes like this, “People should stop resisting (whatever position under debate). After all, they’re on the losing side of history.” I first heard this argument twenty years ago in a World War II documentary, and it seems to be growing in popularity lately. Simply put, this argument is a sham.

    There are two problems with it. First, to make such an argument requires knowledge of the future events. And second, making this argument assumes that all things that are ultimately accepted by society are good.

    I’ll demonstrate the both problems with a short example.

    You live in Germany in the late 1930s. Let’s say that you’re appalled by all of the Jewish persecution and you argue against it. A person could respond with the “you’re on the losing side of history” retort. And at that point it time, it sure looked like they were right. And they would only look more right in the next few years. But when you stretch the timeline into the mid-1940s, things changed. Stretch it out longer still, and matters could change again (one might note that anti-semitism is currently on the rise in Europe). This whole thing only works if you have accurate knowledge of the future. Which you don’t.

    But that’s not the biggest problem with this line of argument. It is the other weakness that is even more troubling. This “losing side of history” argument assumes that all things that society comes to accept are good. But the original point of contention is not whether society comes to accept this controversial position – it’s whether this position is right or wrong. Popularity and acceptance are irrelevant to issues of right and wrong. The previous example of anti-semitism applies here as well. But let’s use a more contemporary example. Pornography, of all types, is more available and acceptable in society than at any time in history, with horrible consequences. Are attempts to stop the flow of pornography to be abandoned simply because an anti-pornography stance is “on the losing side of history”?

    One might counter that there are other good reasons for resisting anti-semitism or pornography. I agree, and thus, you shouldn’t be using bad arguments to make your case. Such is the case with all bad arguments (e.g., “that’s the way it’s always been”). You better bring a good one to the table if you want to make a convincing case.

  10. Pat says:

    Are we… are we really not putting our own draft boards up here? I mean, the reaction to the Joe/Michael draft is almost universal disdain… wait, lemme check… universal disdain, but no one has put up theirs yet. Which seems unfair. (Schattenjäger’s doesn’t count until he or she fills it out.)

    If it’s just fear of ridicule (which, I mean, is a justified fear and almost certain one to be vindicated), I’ll volunteer to go first:

    1. Batman
    2. Wolverine
    3. Spiderman
    4. Captain America
    5. Aquaman
    6. Green Lantern
    7. The Incredible Hulk
    8. Rorschach
    9. Kitty Pryde
    10. Iron Man

    No “honorable mentions,” but if I were sure Catwoman counted as a hero and not a villain or hybrid, she would have made this list—and not because I was looking for more gender balance. Looking at racial diversity on my list… 8 white and 1 green face, and one that has been varied depending on who finds the ring… that’s kind of dispiriting. But that’s comics, I guess.

    • Pat says:

      … and rather than waiting for the scorn of others, I’m already regretting sleeping on Sandman. Oh well.

    • DB says:

      Like your list.

      1. Batman
      2. Spiderman
      3. Wolverine
      4. The Incredible Hulk
      5. Captain America
      6. The Question
      7. Iron Man
      8. The Flash
      9. Rogue
      10. Gambit

  11. We’ve had one Top 100 post this month, and it was a reprint of a column from almost 10 years ago. This thing has really fizzled, even after some posters got together and created a Top 50 pool, which generated some buzz and energy. Joe’s eyes are too big for his stomach sometimes. I wondered how he would find the time to write 100 columns, plus what he already does, plus his regular job. Answer: he hasn’t. Not criticizing, just observing that this thing has really died. It was just too much.

    • Pat says:

      I’m optimistically of the belief that he’s been occupied by (a) the Boston bombing anniversary and the first marathon since and, more importantly from where I sit, (b) finally getting out the Springsteen Hall of Fame.

  12. MCD says:

    I love how, that even though Michael and Joe have (intentionally) never spelled out what the criteria for inclusion was, everyone is certain that the picks are “wrong”. What makes someone worthy of a draft pick? Is it “coolest”?. The most formidable? (if super heroes were real). Marketability? Fame? Enduring popularity?

    Unless you interpreted this as “coolest” or “most interesting”, it is kind of hard to argue with Superman. I understand that for a lot of folks, Superman’s omnipotence can make him boring, but by almost any other barometer he is going to be near the top of the list. As was pointed out in the poscast, he is almost impossible to beat it terms of quantity/quality of powers, and you are going to be hard-pressed to find an English-speaking person who hasn’t heard of him. He was essentially the first super-hero, and still has what, 5 different comics where he is the primary character?

  13. beearl says:

    When Joe said that he there were two things he really loves about Wonder Woman, I almost thought he was gonna say boobs.

  14. Damon Rutherford says:

    Does someone like Angus MacGyver count as a super hero given he uses his extraordinary talents to help the Phoenix Foundation protect the public?

    If I had to choose, I would not classify MacGyver and others — even Batman and Iron Man — as “Super Heroes” given they do not have any “super powers”.

    Also, I’m surprised Joe’s girls didn’t nominate Violet Parr. She can be invisible and create force fields. Very cool.

    In fact, my draft would simply be The Incredibles in this order: Jack Jack, Bob, Violet, Helen, and Dash Parr.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *