Are we cynical about superheroes?

Well, it's a trademarked term. I mean, is Hellboy officially a superhero? 'Cause that might give a good baseline.

As Allan Sherman once kindasorta sang, the way to find out something is to find out what it's not, so if you want to know what a superhero is you have to find out what it isn't.

So, once you've gotten rid of every comic book that is explicitly non-superhero - the funny animals, the horror, the romance, the alternative/underground stuff - then you can figure out whether what's left is a superhero comic or not.

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Quite. Though the original description - vigilante with a secret identity and possibly superpowers - has been steadily subverted by characters who are still officially designated as superheroes in marketing. For that matter, I was originally referring to the fact that the roots of the superhero genre are very close to what would just be called urban fantasy had the term not come into vogue. Nor were they limited to comic books. Nowadays there's little difference between Doctor Strange and Harry Dresden, or even Mandrake the Magician who predates all superheroes altogether.

In short, given the aging and shrinking superhero comic reader base, I wonder where the original would-be target demographic went, and state a possible answer, as well as a cause for the shift. As in yes, general audiences seem to mostly want cathartic-if-less-than-morally-restrained action fantasy, and invest funds accordingly. Another question would be if superhero comics returning to that mold would ultimately prove beneficial for the genre. The Marvel Cinematic Universe seems to indicate as much, at least.

It might piss off the loyal fans, that much I can tell you.

Would it attract general audiences, though? I'm not too sure. Superhero films are popular but it seems that the audience who eats them up aren't taking an interest in the comics they're spawned from.

Admittedly, superhero films have made powerful changes in the comic book world. Howard the Duck's recent cameo in Guardians Of The Galaxy led to him getting his own series again - and I thought it could never happen, given that when you think of him you think of that huge box office bomb... So there might be a chance that the films might influence the comics into changing, if I read you right.

edited 5th Apr '15 3:55:47 PM by Aldo930

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

I was originally referring to the fact that the roots of the superhero genre are very close to what would just be called urban fantasy

Not really. Around half of superheroes fit more the global or even cosmic scheme rather than the urban vigilante motif, although your points seem to mostly hammer back and back to Batman. And I'd say, if anything, those owe more to the fantasy mythology mold that have their first documented roots on the Epic of Gilgamesh, rather than modern urban fiction. Even though Superman started more tied to a socially relevant urban setting than what he'd eventually become, he still balanced that with very serious sci-fi pulp influences, and in the Marvel Age, it was the sci-fi global and space-faring Fantastic Four and their followups of a similar scale (from Iron Man to Hulk to Thor) who opened the doors for the urban Spider-Man and his kind (of whom only Daredevil was relevant before Marvel's Bronze Age). Even the very human Captain America started a warfare hero and then shifted into an international combat character, rather than being strictly tied to urban fiction.

Good points all around. Though I should say I used the term urban fantasy to refer generally to the "supernaturally empowered heroes battling similarly powerful villains in a modern day setting" genre. I mean, the Winchesters barely spend time in a city, yet they still make the cut. So does Warehouse 13, which is as awesomely pulpy as it gets. So, that semantic bit accounted for, I'd say we're in agreement on this matter.

edited 6th Apr '15 6:44:14 AM by indiana404

Personally, I don't find myself to be cynical about superheroes at all. In fact, they might be the thing that I'm least cynical about. Reading something like Kingdom Come or Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth or Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow? is so emotionally fulfilling. Just the idea of Bruce Wayne turning his childhood grief into a crusade for the greater good or a man from a doomed planet coming to Earth and being our champion stirs the spirit within me. Of course, I know they're fictional, but there is still inspiration to be found there. I should be sceptical of this man dressed like a bat, but criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

They have maimed & imprisoned the divine king! Is it any wonder that the world sickens and dies?

I wonder if the whole 'you can only save yourself' and 'you shouldn't rely on superheroes. the example you to be' lessons can ties into our cynicism?

"We are just like Irregular Data. And that applies to you too, Ri CO. And as for you, Player... your job is to correct Irregular Data."

Personally, I really dislike superhero stories that try to put forth the aesop that people shouldn't rely on superheroes. No one relies on superheroes. We don't need anyone to tell us that. These frequently seem to turn into stories that seem to be telling us that no one should ever try to be proactive. I think it's a mistake for the fantastic nature of the hero to become the center of the story, rather than what the hero does with his or her powers. Escapist fantasy is taking itself too seriously when it starts being about addressing problems that could only exist in escapist fantasy.

edited 9th Apr '15 10:52:56 PM by Robbery

I'd say the problem arises when stories try to speak about "real-world" issues with a non-fourth-wall-breaking straight face, only for audiences to realize that, in-universe, there's plenty superheroes can do to address these issues. Personally, I wouldn't find it offensive or belittling if the DCU has a readily distributed functioning cure for cancer synthesized from Superman's blood or somesuch. If anything, it's the contrary position that annoys me - when the overall uselessness of superheroes starts getting shilled as some sort of moral philosophy. The notion that the world is not ready for large-scale changes is even more grating, particularly as the last seventy years were chock-full of them. So that's again a rather baseless cynical attitude toward humanity, which I'm glad to see doesn't pass muster anymore.

In short, that's a batch of necessary weasels that is best left unaddressed, let alone presented as a moral stance.

edited 9th Apr '15 11:42:37 PM by indiana404

I guess it can come off that but what is difference between excessive help or being proactive? Superheroes can inspirations and/or ideals we can strive for but it seems like everywhere they can be a hindrance. The internet is a very negative place.

I suppose you are right. I guess there is a reason for why those tropes are there to begin with.

"We are just like Irregular Data. And that applies to you too, Ri CO. And as for you, Player... your job is to correct Irregular Data."

From /co/:

edited 11th Apr '15 8:40:34 AM by Bonerfart

Oh yes, I'd say actually one of the biggest things leading to cynicism about superheroes is entirely metatextual. The old "Batman is responsible for the people the Joker kills because he won't kill him." This is a problem that exists only in the minds of readers because of the nature of popular serial fiction, and only because nitpicking fanwankers won't leave it alone. It's Comic Book Guy look-how-clever-I-am Complaining 101. It's funny when you're 15 and later becomes the stick super-hero fans get beaten with. All serial fiction is guilty of something like it (why is the Starship Enterprise always the only ship around when the universe needs saving? Why doesn't Blofeld just shoot Bond in the head?) but nobody seems to get hammered for it as much as Super Hero comics.

Sorry, got away from myself a little there. In short, one of the big problems is when a story becomes not about character, or situation, but highlighting issues that arise from the nature of the fiction and holding them up as if they were philosophical difficulties faced by the hero.

edited 11th Apr '15 11:18:36 AM by Robbery

Except it's not just the readers, it's writers who keep bringing it up for dramatic tension.

Wonder how American superhero comics would've gone if Alan Moore never wrote Watchmen and/or Miracleman.

Essentially, this is all because nobody ever thought to say "It's just a show, you should really just relax"?

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Or by writers who are ascended fanboys/girls, approved by editors who are the same. You end up with what we've got entirely too much of now, stories that are entirely about themselves.

Oh That get's said a LOT, it's just routinely ignored.

Yeah, Ennis is one of the ones who uses it as a stick to beat superhero fans with.

edited 11th Apr '15 11:11:40 PM by Robbery

Garth Ennis has asked questions like that and he's far from a superhero fan.

there are only so many times that excuse will work.

Yeah, there's a reason the futility of Thou Shalt Not Kill mixed with Cardboard Prison is usually something people bring up when talking about Batman and the Joker: more than any other character, the Joker is likely to lampshade the futility, drawing readers' attention to it. Without that, it'd just be like Clark Kent's glasses: something that doesn't make sense, but we just roll with it.

Garth Ennis is a euphoric edgelord who tugs it to soldiers but doesn't have the fucking balls to actually sign up. There, I said it.

Isn't the current explanation for Clark Kent that he carries himself completely differently from when he's Superman?

edited 11th Apr '15 11:37:07 PM by Bonerfart

That only explains why random people on the street don't recognize Clark Kent is Superman; it doesn't explain why his co-workers that see him everyday and interact with Superman on a pretty frequent basis don't figure it out within a week.

While I have no problem with the Clark Kent glasses bit, it did make a lot more sense in early days when Superman was a mysterious figure who didn't actually interact much with people when not saving them (think Golden Age, even then, early Golden Age). Still, this one has been written about extensively. At this point it's pretty much, as with so many things, whether or not you can let yourself accept it.

Frankly, I've never seen anyone in anything other than a full face covering where I couldn't tell who it was. I don't imagine little domino masks or half-masks would do much against people who know the hero intimately. As Blake Lively's Carol Ferris said in the Green Lantern film "I've known you since we were kids. Do you think I wouldn't know it's you just because I can't see your cheekbones?" With that in mind, the whole thing falls apart, unless you, you know, decide to accept that a mask, or glasses, can hide a person's identity.

Actually, to take the argument from another angle, go watch Orphan Black to see the variety of ways in which a single person can look remarkably different from herself. For those who don't know, Orphan Black has as its central characters a group of clones. all played by the same actress. What's remarkable are the variety of ways the actress, by use of body language, voice modulation, hair color/style, can make these characters look like completely different people. In many cases you would not know it was the same person. If she can do it, so could Clark Kent.

Never mind the further irony when the other complainer is someone literally Back from the Dead. That's why I've come to believe that the issue isn't about the futility of non-lethal response, but about futility in general. We all accept the nigh-immutable status quo in comic book universes - it's by far the furriest weasel out there. But having villains openly exploit it is nothing if not deliberately cynical for the sake of being cynical. On a larger scale, Gotham may start as a wretched hive, but keeping this up in permanent continuity is impossible to not show off Batman's efforts as completely pointless. Meanwhile, after the umpteenth time that monstrously vicious villains fail to elicit any uncharacteristic response from him, the shock value simply wears off, causing not even cynicism, but simply apathy.

In short, placing superheroes in permanent crapsack worlds is as close to a prime cause for cynicism as it can get. There's only so much darkness fans can take before realizing it's not really building up to anything, and lose interest altogether.

edited 14th Apr '15 1:55:16 AM by indiana404

It's a never ending battle of good and evil. It's just evil is supposed to stay dead or in prison. Crime shows follow that logic, super heroes don't.

Tbf, that's not always the case in real life.