Your Superhero Is Broken - Page 2

Fuck you. We were discussing your article and you appeared to be responding to us. You've made such assumptive quips in the past to people who had the horrible audacity to politely disagree with you, so excuse the hell out of me for mistaking it for one of those many times. My more alarmist counterpart made the same mistake, and I'm sure many other users did. Spare us the predictable effort of packaging a snarky comment about the intelligence of those other users, if you can.

EDIT: It's always obvious Devin would rather rest on his intellectual laurels than actually help educate or enlighten any people who misunderstand or disagree with him. I know I'm a bad example as I've been far too reactionary in the past, but there are several people who simply didn't get what he was saying or have disagreed with it, and it was more important to him to cut them down than ever help those people out. Not that you'd care, Devin, but it's the thing that's always set me off about you, and I actually regret I didn't have the sense to articulate it earlier. It probably wouldn't have ever mattered, and it probably doesn't now, so I'm just pissing in the wind. Insert your "Retards do that." joke here.

EDIT-EDIT: My addendum appears to imply Devin is always right, which he is anything but. As much as I tend to fucking hate him, he's at least rational and well-reasoned most of the time with his premises and ideas, which is why I feel it important he stop trying to appeal to everyone's baser instincts here and actually promote discussion rather than curb it.

Time out, guys. Let's join hands and sing the Hero Song.

Green Lantern is actually an example of a superhero book in terms of top tier story telling by a writer who understands the character. It's not transcendent by any means, but it's still an enjoyable read because it does have that flair of silver age science fiction undertones. Although some of the explanations have allowed for some debate or disagreement, it's a quality superhero comic that is introducing some new concepts to a more established character.

While I can't say I agree 100% with Devin on each of his points, something I've always agreed with is the common misconception in the comic, and film worlds is that "darker means better". It's just not true, and the more serious comics take themselves (more so with superhero books because they're inherently silly) the worse off the medium will become. Within comics there is more than enough room for mature and challenging material, but not each comic that involves super heroes and powers has to have the over inflated self-fellating current stories have brought us.

Superhero comics?

Nerds!

Heh. Sorry.

They do. In A Comics Journal interview from years ago Miller said he and Moore used to joke about how they destroyed the genre with Watchmen and Dark Knight. He said Watchmen killed superheroes and Dark Knight delivered it's eulogy. A pretty accurate summation.

Precisely. In fact, post-Watchmen/Dark Knight, I think Busiek's Astro City is the only comic to really successfully balance the two, combining the gee whiz wonder of the Golden and Silver ages with the psychology of 70s and 80s. Neither gets in the way of the other, and both complement each other pefectly. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the heroes are well realized characters first and super-heroes second.

I think another part of the problem is that these characters are 70 years old in some cases. Even a somewhat recent character like Wolverine is almost 40. How much creative mileage is there left in something that's been around for half a decade? Either you stay on the treadmill and do the same thing over and over again (no matter how well you do it), or you feel the need to radically revamp things every five or ten years and make the character unrecognizable. All the while trying to somehow justify your continuity without making your character actually 70 years old.

And continuity is the biggest creative shackle, or at least the way its used. You had DC creating alternate Earths so a character created in 1939 could still be believably adventuring in 1980, and Marvel subtly retconning origins involving World War II to Vietnam and then to the Gulf War. And trying to make the stories realistic by reflecting the current world only helps pin the character down further in a specific time. While I don't want to see them abandon continuity altogether, I think finite series or generational series would be a great idea -- say Superman was around from 1939 until 1970, got old and retired. Imagine the story ideas of exploring a world where such a major hero left the scene, and the struggles of those who came after to replace him. And the major hero's struggle with not being in the limelight anymore. Let your universe carry on for 70 or 80 years, but don't creatively bankrupt your characters to make them last that long as well.

In general, the movies and cartoons, specifically the Dini/Timm ones, have had a better grasp on the superhero concept by simply trying to tell straight forward character driven adventures instead of trying to break everything down into meta-commentaries or event driven/shock driven junk. All Star Superman is probably the shining example of pure superhero escapism done right on DC's side and I give Morrison credit for reveling in the Batman copycats for his Club of Heroes storyline instead of being condescending and ironic.

Dwayne McDuffie, who was so good with the cartoon JLU, is just being suffocated under editorial demands and everything that's wrong with modern comics is showing up there. And in Countdown which is being run by Dini.

I think the subtle retconning of heroes can work. Just update it with no real fanfare. Punisher a Vietnam vet ? Now a Gulf war vet. That easy. Were it all goes sideways is when they try to justify or over explain the changes. Then you get magic involved or some giant reality shattering crossover. If they just sorta silently updated things, then all could keep rolling. The slave to continuity is the major problem. I guess the comic fandom (the ones who bitch and moan the most) want every story to be remembered and count. They basically suck.

if you think about it for more than 30 seconds, it's pretty ridiculous to need to have a story "count".
Moore summed it up best in his intro to the last Superman story before the John Byrne revamp- "This is an imaginary story. Aren't they all?"

The only time a story counting would matter, would be in the middle of an arc. Back in my reading days, the 'who is the hobgoblin' story in Spider-Man was one of my favorite. So little story details, from issues back mattered. It was integral to the overall story arc. But when it is just the Lizard back again for the thousandth time, every prior battle doe not need to 'count'. Why saddle yourself with all that baggage ? But the loudest fans want all those battles to count. Oh well, comics as a child's medium is on its way out. Then comics will begin to truly fade (at least super hero comics).

I think it's the collectors who want those issues to count, because if you've got an issue with an appearance by a hot character, the value goes up. I remember during the height of Venom mania there was actually a debate as to whether the hand that pushed Peter out in front of the subway car (which later turned out to be Brock/Venom) counted as Venom's actual first appearance, and some tried to price the issue higher because of it.

And you know, that's another issue -- is there any other form of storytelling that's also seen as a collectible item with possible resale value?

Not is the same manner that comic books are collectibles. I guess that is where the slavish love of continuity originates. People collecting first appearances and origin issues. The industry (at least the super hero side) is tied up pretty tight with collecting, so there will be no real change there until that mentality is gone.

The main problem has been, and always will be, that these are stories with no ending. There is no logical conclusion, no climax it's all building towards, it's just something that will trudge on and on and on and on.

I hang my hat on stories that have a beginning, middle and an end.

Yeah. Somebody made the point on the boards once that the idea of superheroes as our modern day Greek mythology doesn't really work, because the Greek gods all eventually had their downfall. No matter what Spider-Man goes through, he'll be fine and will go on and on and on.

The foreword to my TPB of DKR makes this point, Greek myth comparisons and all.

And then he made a sequel to it.

But see, that was like a big meta joke to illustrate that point. Get it? Now he's doing it again with All-Star Batman. So now his punchline is repetitive, just like superheroes. And people still keep paying to see him tell the same joke. GET IT?! It's so meta, my brain just turned inside out.
Frank Miller is The Joker.

To be fair, he only made it to get a whole lot of moolah. Not that that excuses the shittyness of it or anything.

No, Syd - it was awesome BECAUSE he shit on it! You paid 20 bucks to be told how stupid you are for liking the thing he shit on! Because the world of "serves you right" is now some valid form of entertainment.

The Joker strikes again!

There's plenty of examples on CHUD that you can point to as Devin doing some self loathing but this ain't it. It's more a love letter to a medium that he feels could be doing something better. It's actually one of the few articles he's done where he seems to accept that he's a geek, loves geeky things and likes talking about geeky things.

Embrace the silly, and if you want something serious, pick up a Tolstoy. People are wanting comics (at least superhero comics) to be something they're not. Superhero comics are not meant to expand your horizons. Real books do that. You're wanting a gourmet meal from McDonald's here, and they just aren't capable of it. Don't feel guilty that you're eating a burger. Maybe you should try for a better burger, but it's still junk. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't make it your chief food group.

All I want from a superhero comic is fun. Talking gorillas, robot dinosaurs, Imps from the fifth dimension, stuff like that. I don't need the rape. In fact that's the thing I least want to see in a superhero story. I can't say comics were better when I was a kid, early nineties comics sucked, but there wasn't any rape in them.

Well exactly. Which is why superhero comics should stop doing the whole "gourmet junk food" thing that they're doing right now.

I'll concede to being a bit hyperbolic here, especially considering I've enjoyed a lot of Green Lantern stuff. It's just that, much like Star Trek, the potential is so infinite it irks me when they limit themselves to endless struggles revolving around Earth and human/humanoid green lantern after human/humanoid green lantern.

Entirely right. Dave Mckean said as much regarding Arkham Asylum, a laughably serious comic if ever there was one. I think he said something along the lines that "It's all well and good Grant knows all this psychological gobbledy-gook, but at the end of the day we're still making a BATMAN comic." I think that says it all, really.

This could not be more true. I do think it's jarring when a story suddenly shifts halfway through, but that's another issue (although entirely related). I tend to get really annoyed any time somebody whines about a retcon that alledgedly renders a previous story irrelevent. Did you read/enjoy that story? Can you still find and read that story? How does somebody saying something about it 10-15 years later change the story so drastically as to remove all merit? I suppose I'm writing my own point's epitaph there considering there are definitely things that can ruin a story (revalation about the author's intent, commonly held misinterpretation of the text), but in the cases most fanboys whine about (Brand New Day, for example) this isn't true.

This isn't true. The characters live on, but plenty of superhero comic stories have a finality to them. Who cares if that finality is eventually undone by another story? The original story was still self-contained, and can even occasionally be made better by an addition later on.

Spider-man may never end, but 'Death of the Staceys', 'Spider-man No More', and 'Kraven's Last Hunt' all were definitively conclusive. Spider-man doesn't have to die or quit or grow old in order for any of these to have an ending.


My only quibble here is you appear to be putting Watchmen and Dark Knight in here as well. Do you feel the same way about those two?

WATCHMEN and DARK KNIGHT are real exceptions that prove the rule. It's really telling that there's nothing in comparison since then.

Dark Knight definitely embraces The Silly. But it uses The Silly to sell a legitimately dramatic story about the need for heroes vs. the perils of fascism.

Gotcha.

Yes, but it is still definitley on a higher altar than say, Civil War and should be considered literature.

You know what? Im about to do something i'd never thought I would do in my life.
Im thanking you, Devin, for your article.
Not because I liked, but because after a few hours of thinking, Ive come to dislike it and scorn it so much, this very article has inspired me.
You see, Ive been struggling with my literature thesis for a few months now; I wanted to do something original and refreshing, something no one had done before in my country...I wanted to write about Superheroes, their history and significance.
Yet i struggled making a choice in the subject, because of fear of it being silly, of not being able to choose between such a vast number of subjects.
Eventually, I decided on doing it on "Watchmen" a few days ago...it seemed like the safest and most logical choice.
Then this article came....and it made me change my mind.
Ive choosen a new subject for my thesis, one that proves my belief in the importance and value of the superhero and its meaning in our culture, and one that proves, in my opinion, that Devin is wrong.
My choice?
James Robinson's "Starman" 80 issue run during the 90's...because I sincery though about which comic I had actually loved and cared about as a young person...and I remembered it.
I deeply believe in the cultural and entertainment value of that comic...it triggers emotions of awe, joy and inspires me as much as a great film or book, and that is what I believe makes comics great.
Our ability to believe in them and see beyond them as mere entertainment...its part of the one of the greatest ablities we humans have; to be able to believe in something, regardless of it being real or believable.
Thank you Devin, for reminding me of that, and for inspiring me to make a choice in my life....we might not see eye to eye, but Im still honest enough to admit that you've helped me here, even if you didnt mean to.
Thanks to you and everyone involved in this thread for that.

I agree with your thesis more than I do with Devin's. Devin makes some very compelling arguments and does accurately point out the genre peaked with Dark Knight and Watchmen, but as I've said before I disagree entirely that it lacks sufficient merit to be worth much since. More importantly, the potential is always there to perhaps surpass either of those works some day, and that's reason enough for the genre to stick around.

I also want to point out it's admirable to recognize and laud something somebody you don't like did that was of value. People here, and in general tend to dismiss opinions frequently just because of who they came from, rather than whether or not they have any merit. As I said, Devin's a pretty shitty guy a lot of the time, but he's still smart and considers his opinions even if he doesn't always follow them up with articles or discourse deserving of them.

EDIT: Wanted to add that Devin is far from the only person that does this, as I definitely have here many times myself. Devin is just the most obvious example right now and the one pertinent to the discussion.

This is not actually what the phrase "exception that proves the rule" means, although it's often misused.
It should be "prove" in the older meaning of "test". The supposed exception tests the rule, and if it is indeed an exception, then the rule fails the test.

Sorry for the pedantry.

The problem is that the genre of superheroes is crowding every other genre and dominating the medium. It's technically possible to ignore superheroes and still read comics, but the fortunes of every other comic are linked to what Marvel and DC are doing. Fortunately the medium seems to finally be diversifying and building alternate methods of distribution to help grab non-superhero readers, but I worry that Marvel and DC are in decline. If their fortunes take a downturn, which I do see happening sometime in the next few years, they could cause pretty serious shockwaves for the rest of the industry.

I tend to agree as my favourite superhero story of the past 8 years was not comic book based but clearly benefited from not being so, this of The Incredibles.

It's been noted before but Incredibles rips off Watchmen something fierce.

Not to mention Fantastic Four and Atlas Shrugged!

I would not say that, it takes one aspect ,the public disowning the supers, directly from Watchmen. Other than that Bird plucks some solid ideas and then add in his own vision of superhero mythos and runs with it. Like for instance the coolest thing about the Incredibles to me is that a crazy scorned fanboy creates his own powers and nearly wipes them all out. In twine this with a very good story about power in familial relationships and it gets even further from the overtly political message hammered out in every frame of Watchmen. So yes its bit and pieces are stolen from Watchmen, Fantastic 4, and Johnny Quest, but those are very good bits and good knows nearly every other Superhero angle has been tried in some form of another, so this is the Pixar genius here at its best take the best bits disconnect them from their full bodies add them to the mixer and end up with something familiar yet fresh.

The Incredibles didn't "rip off" anything. That would insinuate that Brad Bird was trying to get away with something. I think that he fully expected comics fans to see the similarities, and appreciate them. It's like saying that Donner's Superman "ripped off" the New Testament.

Well it's one thing for the Incredibles characters to sport superpowers that are well-associated with various 'real' comic-book heroes. I have no problem with that. But the similarities to Watchmen are a little too specific: anti-hero legislation, retired heroes getting killed off, not to mention the whole thing about capes. When the Watchmen movie comes out there will be folks claiming it took ideas from the Pixar film.

And Superman didn't rip off the NT-- E. T. did.

This is the best Chud parody thread since the trial of Luke Skywalker thread last year

Yes, but those are the same idiots who said that Verhoeven's Starship Troopers was too much like Aliens. Let's not try using them for a benchmark.

But I trip over them everywhere I turn...