Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
They don't set themselves up as an authority so much as refuse to accept any other.
- Tony Stark: I have successfully privatized world peace.
- Steve Rogers: The safest hands are our own.
Sounds an awful lot like "Superheroes setting themselves up as an authority" to me.
edited 14th Jul '16 7:27:22 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm not sure how exactly those two things are actually different? It basically comes down to 'I reject your authority and use my own' - sure for the most part they punish people who do things illegal by law but they do so by beating people up which would get most lawfully appointed policemen in hot water.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."Not necessarily. Superheroes use force to end an active threat. Rare is the superhero that decides to go off and start wailing on a villain who has already surrendered or been incapacitated.
Attacking someone who is pointing a gun at people is not police brutality. Hell, even civilians are allowed to do it; it falls under Defense of Other.
There are a lot of questionable things that superheroes do, but using force to apprehend violent criminals isn't one of them. On paper, that's just fine. If Peter Parker sees a guy getting mugged and uses force to stop the mugging, that's entirely legal - in fact, some states have laws against walking away.
It's all the other things surrounding superheroes' use of force that make it questionable.
edited 14th Jul '16 9:18:04 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call Die Hard "hyper masculine." The whole appeal of John Mc Clane as a character initially, and something that the sequels progressively forgot more and more, is that he wasn't a traditional "macho muscle-bound, unstoppable juggernaut killing machine action hero."
Predator, ok yeah that was pretty "macho." Although in the end, Arnie and co's "macho toughness" didn't do them much good in that film (Arnie had to rely on trickery and cleverness to ultimately defeat the Predator, not brute strength).
![]()
That is a valid distinction, though I would counter with the point that the vast majority of superheroes specifically go out looking for criminals doing crimes. Obviously there is the whole vendetta/arch-nemesis aspect of superheroism but legally I can't imagine there is not a distinction between 'stopping a crime I came across' and 'masked vigilante goes looking for trouble'.
If there were 'real' super-heroes then we would almost certainly have something like the Accords to deal with them. And almost certainly, some would not play by those rules - for better or worse.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."Superheroes have prolematic aspects but I wouldn't call them fascist, even because superheroes vary a lot between them. The only really fascist "superhero" Marvel has in the current MCU is the Punisher, and being a pseudo-fascist is kind of the point of his character.
The superhero with most Unfortunate Implications is, definitely, Batman. Rich guy beating the poor and mentally ill to a pulp whilst taking the laws into his own hands and refusing any sort of earthly authority...
"All you Fascists bound to lose."He's a billionaire who can do anything, have anything, not have to work a day in his life, etc. But yet he chooses to travel the world for years learning various skills, then comes back, dresses up in a glorified Halloween costume, and spends his nights leaping over rooftops beating up criminals, and subjecting his own body to a ton of punishment in the process as well. And he can be emotionally closed-off and constantly (either intentionally or subconsciously) tends to sabotage his chances at having true happiness because of his pathological obsession with his "crusade." And he's willing to "play the fool" in public just to hide his true nature. All of this because he was permanently psychologically scarred by seeing his mom and dad murdered right in front of him at the tender age of eight.
Yeah, a psychiatrist could build an entire career out of just trying to analyze Batman's numerous mental, emotional, and psychological "issues" and STILL not get to them all. And the thing is, in numerous stories, he's depicted as being well-aware of this fact. He knows that he's messed up, but still cannot stop himself from continuing on regardless. But, when it comes to his proteges, it's also been repeatedly shown that, he really DOESN'T want them to end up like him. He wants them to find the stability and happiness that he cannot.
The fact that a fair number of his enemies would still be evil murderous psychopaths even if he took the logical rich person approach to fixing Gotham, that being actually fixing Gotham, is not to be forgotten.
In a world of Supervillains, they will still beget superheroes, even if only in retaliation against the men who just want to watch the world burn.
And also there's the built-in explanation of "he needs lots of fancy and really expensive equipment, vehicles, tech, weapons, etc in order to battle these threats." And it'd be hard for some average Joe from off of the street to get their hands on said equipment. So either he's independently rich, or he has government contacts that can help him. Those are the two most logical ways around this notion. And he's not the only hero like this. Tony Stark, Oliver Queen, and so on also come to mind as examples.
Also there have been numerous stories that show and/or reference Bruce Wayne using his money to also fund various charities/philanthropic endeavors, including ones designed to try and help the poor/downtrodden.
edited 14th Jul '16 11:56:47 AM by Punisher286
Of course. The years move on and writers find ways to make excuses or handwave the problematic aspects of the premise. Gotham in particular tends to bend itself backwards to justify Batman's existence (the entire judicial system is corrupt or ineffectual, serial killers in every corner, crime and poverty are literally endemic to Gotham's very stones and there is literally no way to solve it other than beating everyone to a pulp). If you know Batman lore, most of those Unfortunate Implications have been addressed some way or another (much like Captain America addressed its jingoistic beginnings), but that doesn't change the fact it's a uncomfortable premise.
edited 14th Jul '16 12:08:56 PM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."It think saying that Batman is "refusing any sort of earthly authority" is a pretty gross mischaracterization of his character. In most of his depictions he has the Bat Signal (or Bat Phone) which the authorities use to call him for help.
More often than not, Batman works with the police, and only in the most cynical depictions he outright goes against them.
edited 14th Jul '16 12:32:45 PM by Paradisesnake
It's almost always rather tricky to try and apply "real word standards" to superhero comics. Because ultimately, by their very nature, they were sort of set up from the beginning very differently from the real world. So trying to draw parallels gets clunky at times.
For example, trying to make collateral damage a major plot point. Again, the whole "heroes and villains brawl in populated areas where the stakes are highest" is just sort of an ingrained staple of the genre and always has been. And honestly, it's part of their appeal for many people. I don't think that the climax of The Avengers would have been nearly as exciting or had quite the same impact for many in the general audience if the big battle with the Chitauri took place in say, a barren desert or deserted forest or whatever. Having it take place in downtown NYC, with all that entails, just adds something "extra" to the whole thing.
Also in the real world, we don't have aliens, monsters, evil gods, interdimensional beings, magic users, demons, etc constantly invading and causing mass destruction and chaos, so the attempt and an analogy gets even more tricky there.

Die Hard Director Hates Captain America; Says Comic Movies Are Fascist
http://screenrant.com/john-mctiernan-captain-america-mad-max-fury-road-fascist/