Anyone else not a fan of the superhero?

I like the classical heroes such as Hercules, Achilles, etc. But here I'm more talking about the modern comic book hero.

I just don't like them. I think the reason may be that I find the whole concept a bit narcissistic. Like one person can do all these majestic things and is looked up to as some sort of icon. It takes a civilisation and a lot of people to do grand things in my opinion. A single saviour just doesn't cut it for me.

Oh, and they're also often depicted as morally flawless, which I find a bit unreal.

What do you think?

 

What part did the civilization play in the feats of Hercules or Achilles? It seems to me they were strong courageous individuals who performed feats individually. What kind of 'grand things' did civilization do in those stories?

So are you only talking about the classic DC heroes, aside from Batman then? Marvel heroes are far from morally pure. Honestly it sounds like you just don't know much about superheroes in general and you're basing this all on a couple of incorrect assumptions.

It would be more helpful if you could single out a particular one or a group of them.

Many of the modern superheroes of course were partially based on some of the mythical heroes or gods, but in a very different context and for very different reasons. The ancient gods and heroes were used to impart wisdom in a time before written language when everything was expressed metaphorically through songs poetry and stories. But superheroes are just entertainment created in a secular age partially as morality tales (the original lineup of DC heroes aside from Batman) and some serve somewhat different purposes. In general it seems there was a lot more nuance and complexity included in the myths, and in the modern comic books (if we're talking the old DC comics starting around the early 30's) they were simplified down and sort of 'Disney-fied', in the sense that they were supposed to be simplistic, perfectly good symbols for the kids to aspire to and to comfort people as war was gearing up. And as with the pulps they grew from, the comics were meant to appeal to the less-than-literate who maybe couldn't even read the words but might just look at the pictures.

The superheroes were thought up by individuals working to a market, trying to come up with publishable ideas that could be done cheaply in the 3-color printing available at the time and definitely aimed at children as simple morality tales. Except for Batman, who was based largely on The Shadow and The Phantom from the pulps, so a dark frightening figure intended to inspire fear in the hearts of criminals. More a dark fantasy of turning something loose on the criminals and gangsters that was more scary than they were. And in the beginning he used a tommygun and had no compunctions about killing or cruelty.

In contrast the heroes and gods of the ancient religions were distillations partly drawn originally from actual people, or legends about them, partly representative of an entire people or a city-state in a sociological sense, and definitely not written to a market but condensed over centuries or eons from the greatest wisdom known to man in those days. They didn't try to hide uncomfortable facts from the children in those days, it wasn't until the Victorian age that concerned and pampered people started to think of children as poor little bundles of vulnerability that need to be protected from truth in order not to frighten them. And of course the religions weren't specifically for children, they were for everybody and partially designed to keep the culture alive by remembering its values through story and legend in order to pass them on from generation to generation.

 

By the time Marvel was born in the early 60's (actually Atlas Comics changed its name) Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were trying to re-define what comics could be. Originally of course when they were Atlas or whatever they started as (I think the name changed several times) they were doing stories much like the cheesy DC morality plays, dumbed down for kids. Interestingly it was the golden age of magazine stories and illustration, but the comics were a whole different world. The writers and illustrators weren't college educated, at least not as writers and illustrators, they were just average joes who had fallen into publishing by hook or by crook and were writing simple stories just like what had been working for a few decades. I forget the details, but Stan Lee was at a point where he wanted to do something new and different. He thought the public was ready for more sophisticated stories and heroes that weren't simple icons of pure morality. But Atlas refused to let him try it. He was going to just quit his job and become a plumber or something, but his wife talked him into making one really big effort, just make a story of the kind he wanted to publish and show it to them (rather than just present the idea in words and see if they OK it or not).

Again I forget the details, but that's when the Fantastic 4 were born. Then came Spider Man and the Hulk and the X Men and the Avengers etc. The basic idea was he wanted to appeal to the new youth market and he wanted the heroes to be teenagers rather than the staid middle-aged heroes of DC. And he wanted them to have the same kinds of problems the teens of the time had. Peter Parker was a nerd who got picked on at school. The X Men were mutants seen as freaks and feared and hated by the society they protected. Wolverine is far from morally perfect, he's basically a wild-man berserker who needs to constantly be dissuaded from tearing people to pieces and he has definite issues with authority and with being a team player.

The ideas and the writers kept evolving until in the 90's the heroes were hard to tell from the villains. Of course this paralleled the whole anti-hero movement that affected everything else, from Clint Eastwood movies to pro wrestling (where Hulk Hogan, the most morally pure hero of them all, suddenly became evil to the core). I remember a period when all the X Men had fangs and had become vampires for several issues if not longer (I didn't pay close attention).

 

Tony Stark (Iron Man) was a particularly far-from-perfectly-moral case. It was the age of the hippies, and they hated nothing so much as wealthy industrialists, playboys, and warmongers. So Stan gave them one who had a change of heart and became a hero. But even after his change of heart he still wasn't a paragon of moral perfection. He was an alcoholic and had issues with narcissism.

 

To take this to a different level of analysis, it seems people of a collectivist nature often dislike heroes and superheroes because they're symbols of rugged individualism.

 

@Xoic
Good analysis. I think you just elaborated on why I dislike the modern ones. They're simplistic and cater to a younger market, children and teens. I very much enjoy the wisdom behind the classical heroes, even if I have problems remembering it. (I liked Achilles love story and his human vengeance when his lover is killed.)

I have not read any superhero comic book, just seen some of the Marvel and DC movies, and it feels like they're trying to reach a broader market with them. Meaning they're trying to make adults also like these new movies. And sure, they may have succeeded, even if it isn't my particular cup of tea.

Superheroes in modern settings also tend to be part of great destruction, whole cities crumble during their battles, yet they face little reprecussion and are often lucky in an unlikely way that few to none die. This comes back to the target audience that seems a bit weird to me, are they targeting children/teens or adults? Or all? Or perhaps there exist in our society a new group, adults with childlike minds and morality? (I don't mean this in an offensive way, innocence can be a beautiful and pure thing.)
(I remember something about Batman, or was it Superman, getting a bit of flack for battling in a city in some movie.)

I can appreciate strong individualism, when there is thought and humanity behind it.

 

I would agree with @Madman that heros like Superman (I’m thinking of the old ones, haven’t seen any of the remakes) are pretty vanilla and annoying. But superheroes like Batman as normally portrayed, especially like Nolan’s interpretation, are pretty awesome.

 

Largely they're aiming the movies at the people who grew up with the comic books, adults starting slightly older than me (I started looking at them probably in the mid to late 60's). So their biggest demographic is people around my age with a nostalgic love for the comics. But there are also people who started seeing the horrible Superfriends style cartoons in the 80's.

I don't know much about the newer DC movies, like the one where Superman was criticized for destroying a city or whatever. My guess would be it's a slightly disguised version of the defund the police sort of attitude, where people blame the police for things they need to do in order to stop crime, and for the handful of bad cops and corrupt police departments. After all Superman wears blue, like the police do, and sort of polices Gotham City. It would also tie in to similar movements to disarm the military in the belief that it's going to stop war (it would, by instead enabling the slaughter, conquest and slavery of the disarmed side).

I remember in one of the Marvel movies (one I've only seen once and don't remember well) that Tony Stark fought against the Hulk in his Hulkbuster armor and they destroyed a large part of New York. That wasn't waved off as if not many people got hurt, it was a major event in the Marvel universe and people rose up in anger and revolt against superheroes, saying they should be locked up or not allowed to do their thing. It was presented as a 9-11 level event, and when the Marvel Netflix 'street-level' series started coming out shortly after, there were references to it as a huge tragedy. It sent massive waves through all the other movies that followed it, and the Avengers were put in prison (except for Captain America, who went rogue, outgrowing his former naivety and realizing that the government can become corrupt and can't be trusted implicitly as he always used to).

So it sounds like you're not very familiar with the movies, or only a couple of them. Or maybe you object to other aspects of them. I couldn't argue with that (believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan, though I do enjoy them). I definitely agree with Martin Scorsese that the Marvel movies and superhero movies in general aren't what he calls 'cinematic' because there's no sense of existential danger. They're formulaic as hell, though some of them are very well made and enjoyable (to me). Though it can't be argued simply that you know the heroes won't die, because many of them do (though most of them come back). But they don't die until they've served their own story arc to its end. The movies are condensing decades of comic book story arcs down into a few movies, so their individual story arcs cover maybe 6 or 7 movies.

They do suffer horrible consequences. Tony Stark suffers from PTSD pretty convincingly, worse in each move, until he has breakdowns in Iron Man 3. Not that that's a very good movie though.

I suspect your real reasons for disliking them are a bit more subtle than what you've been able to articulate so far. And I probably agree with many of them. I have yet to be able to clearly define my own issues with them in any real depth.

 

@Madman Have you ever watched The Boys (series)? If you would like to see a more morally corrupt "superhero" you may like it! I thought it was entertaining.

I think superheros are lighthearted fun. Kids generally love to imagine that they have super powers and catch the "bad guys" aka super villains. It's a natural part of play that people seem to hold onto into adulthood. Kinda cheesy, bright colours, good vs evil, some interesting alter-egos. In short: pure escapism...

 

I'm only a Marvel fan, but this is not really the case for Marvel superheroes.

there's a whole movie about this in the MCU. Collateral damage is actually something that's dwelt on to some degree.

 

I wouldn't say pure escapism. Only in the sense that in real life you don't know who the good guys and the bad guys are, you can't tell them by silly costumes or anything. It's a stylized and simplified slice of real life though, in that you do need to fight (usually not physically) for what you believe in or somebody can destroy it or take it away from you. And with at least the somewhat more morally complex heroes it gets closer to real life, because they're capable of falling on the bad side sometimes without realizing it, just as we all are.

I came to realize in art class that there are 2 different kinds of artists (one possible division among many that can be made)--those who like and do dynamic art and those who apparently hate it with every fiber of their being. The ones who hate it draw things completely still. Still lifes, landscapes, portraits, and if they draw human figures they're in poses that can be held for a long time, reclining or sitting or standing with arms supported. In other words very static, dull poses, as if they're not people but statues.

As a fan of a lot of comic book art and heroic fantasy art and the very dynamic art of the Renaissance and several other periods/movements, I had learned to do very dynamic poses and get a sense of powerful movement and energy in. The class was divided neatly into the people who liked this and the ones who very strongly didn't. And now I wonder how closely that would map onto the ones who lean toward individualism and the ones who don't. I'd like to check into that if I can find a way. It seems these splits in personality types tend to fall broadly into 2 basic camps.

 

I'm not a big fan of Western superheroes, but I welcome them wholeheartedly to the contemporary entertainment scene. It adds color.

Most modern depictions of superheroes are actually pretty down-to-earth and modest; far from being laden with invincibility, flawless morality, and narcissism like most critics to the genre would commonly associate them with. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find a superhero media these days which does not attempt to humanize, to "nerf", or to tone the characters down a bit in some way, to help readers and viewers relate to them better. People can't like them if they're not relatable.

Series like The Boys even subverted the whole trope and kicked it up a notch, and the result is quite popular and well-accepted as well.

 

My personal favorite in all the Marvel cinematic universe is Jessica Jones. It's far more realistic than the rest, she doesn't have much in the way of powers. Only a bit stronger than most people and can jump really high and sort of control the fall. She doesn't wear a costume (though her friend tries to talk her into it), but she does tend to dress very similarly every day. She's severely traumatized and lives in a very morally grey world, an alcoholic and misanthrope who doesn't consider herself a hero at all, though when it becomes necessary she will do whatever it takes to help the people she's close to or even innocent bystanders in need. It's far and away the best psychological study in the marvel universe (that I'm aware of) and at least in the Netflix series that's the main point of it. The writers are obviously well-versed in the psychology of trauma, PTSD and addiction.

The villain has telepathic powers of mind control which makes him the total psychopathic abuser. If he tells you to do something you have to do it, you have no choice in the matter. This sets it up (in season 1 anyway) to be about abuse and manipulation. I was so taken by the psychology of it I did a writeup: Jessica Jones - All About Abuse - Exploring the Character Web - Initial Thoughts. Spoilers.

If I had to pick from among the more standard superhero type movies my favorite would be Logan, rated R, which begins after the accidental death of most of the X Men because Professor X, the world's most powerful telepath, is experiencing some Alzheimer's-like symptoms that cause everything in his vicinity to shake violently and everyone to freeze. And it kills mutants. Only Logan (Wolverine) was able to survive it due to his (now deteriorating) power of regeneration and healing. But this power itself is fading, and the adamantium laced throughout his entire skeleton is poisoning him from the inside. It's the story of the death of a superhero, basically of all of them, but there's a small cadre of children with mutant abilities that were unknown because they were trapped in cages in Mexico being experimented on.

It's very powerful, if your'e not put off by the whole idea of superheroes, and like the Wolverine comic book, nobody wears a costume and he's on his own, not part of the X Men, except that now he's the caretaker for the elderly Professor X in his declining years. I want to say more, but it would include spoilers, so forget it.

 

Trailers for both to show the tone, very different from what you might expect in a superhero movie:

 

@Xoic
Ah yes, I did actually watch Jessica Jones and Logan and I did appreciate them. Probably because they weren't in any costumes. Maybe some of my dislike boils down to the costumes then? Because Batman can be a bit gritty as well, but I just can't take him seriously with that costume he has. So maybe I am very vain?

I also liked the Punisher and Daredevil series. So I do not dislike all superheroes I guess. That does not explain why I like Daredevil, though, since he has a costume. Oh well.

 

I agree, it's hard to get past the costumes. That's been a major problem any time anybody has tried to make a superhero movie. It works differently in the comics, where they're basically drawing the nude figure, like in ancient Greek sculpture, the athletic form with a few lines drawn on it and some primary colors and a cape. But comics are very abstract, an artist's style can make it look really good (or not). And some movies have tried doing the spandex costumes (who remembers that crappy Spiderman series from, was it the 70's or early 80's?)(Oh, and the Batman TV show from the 60's! Biff! Pow!!).

I just watched The Crow a couple nights ago, and again last night with the commentary track on, and Alex Proyas (producer, maybe director?) said they messed around with all kinds of costumes and ended up with a long leather trench coat as a modern, urban costume that sort of looks like a cape but that isn't ridiculous. After that everybody started doing it, from Blade to Sin City and beyond. Other things that make comic book movies seem ridiculous include flying and all manner of weird powers where they hold their hands out any colored rays blast out of them, or beams coming out of their eyes. etc. Though I must say, toward the end of phase 3 (which ended with Infinity War and then Endgame) Marvel was using some incredible CGI effects that often made the entire screen amazing to look at.

 

I'm okay with the single savior type more so from a Christian aspect, even then followers are needed to accept and flourish the set change. But I'm done with comic book movies. I was done with them after the first Iron man. Maybe it's just me, I'm not big on sequels or franchises. I feel like they blow the charm of the initial movie by clowning with the same tricks - even Taken which isn't a comic book movie exasperated me with its sequels.

I was never a fan of a person with superpowers coming in and exerting change that never required help. It's kinda like if you examine the idea of Santa Claus too much you realize if a strange man delivered presents, what requires the individual to work hard, sacrifice and provide presents to his loved ones if freebies show up? Why would a nation improve if there's a man who could fly around get you out of jams, and fight your evil battles for you. There's no requirement of the individual to be an active part in the battle for good and evil. Or that the battle for good and evil isn't as much individualistic as it is global.

I don't mind comic book types but I think bringing them into film was a bit of a mistake, they're not designed for full fledged stories, or deep character flaws or introspection. They're designed for their wham! pow! adventures.

I tend to miss just plain old genre to begin with - the crime film, the noir, the western, the musical. Heros like likeable Gary Cooper, tough guys like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne, tender heroes like Montgomery Cliff and Henry Fonda, suave types like Cary Grant and Gene Kelly, easy going leading men like Kevin Costner - you know put-upon heroes that rise to the occasion. Individual efforts that inspired others.

 

I hate superhero movies, but mostly because I find them incredibly stupid. I loved superheroes as an adolescent though. Now, I know real superheroes would likely get booed for saying something politically incorrect or saving the wrong person the minute they put on the tights and cape.

 

I don't really like most superhero movies because they are pretty bland in terms of plot and predictability. But the characterisation has been the strong point and I'd have to give them this begrudgingly, so I am surprised you think they are morally flawless. Tony Stark is always depicted as arrogant and sometimes his arrogance leads to enemies like Ultron. You got someone like Thor who used to think because he was a god he didn't need any help. I'd say the only flawless characters in MCU is captain marvel and captain America. Captain America being saved by the fact he wasn't all powerful while captain marvel is sort of a dumb all powerful entity with 1 dimensional personality. But everyone else have failures and flaws.

I think they are not that dissimilar from greek mythology. The only difference is that the greeks were contending against gods and they mostly only got phyric victories while MCU tends to actually vanquish their antagonist. So it's not the characters you have problems with I think, but the actual plotlines where no one dies and there isn't that sense of tension.

 

I find superman boring. Why would you want to follow a hero that can do everything?
And to top it off he's not even human. It would probably be easier to relate to a god with flaws.

 

I think extremes can be quite interesting though. Superman is the extreme of the super hero genre, he's sort of sitting at the highest level of power. So because he's such a Mary Sue, I can become invested in the ways they can limit his power or create weaknesses. The worst weakness is when they use kryptonite or something, but causing him to fail through moral conundrum can be intriguing. Basically superman is like a haiku, making meaningful work within the constraint can be powerful.

 

This is a very intriguing thought. I could see it in 2 different ways.

1) Almost all the heroes and villains in the MCU are narcissists of various types, flavors and degrees who take no notice of the pathetic peons they stride among, until the see another superpowered (narcissistic) person, and then they square off to determine who's king of the hill. This almost works.

2) The powers symbolize the fact that all of us have unique natural talents and abilities that make us special. Some of us use them to enrich the lives of ourselves and those we're close to, and some use them selfishly for only their own benefit (villains). And the good ones protect the rest from the bad ones.

It seems like Marvel does see all the heroes as narcissistic to some degree, in various ways, or most of them anyway. That seems fairly subdued in the tentpole movies, but it came out much more explicitly in the Netflix shows and then apparently more so in the newer shows (I haven't seen any of them but have watched a few things about them). Maybe they're not all narcissistic necessarily, but there's a definite awareness of trauma and psychological conditions. And of course not all the narcissistic ones are pathological. Only the villains are.

I'm having a hard time thinking of an MCU hero that isn't narcissistic to some degree. The Guardians of the Galaxy is basically a bunch of emotionally frozen children constantly vying for all the attention in the room. This is largely just a recognition of the fact that all children are narcissistic, at around 5 or 6 some of us grow out of it and some never do.

These are fun ideas to play around with.

 

And in a sense of course the superheroes in movies grew from the 80's action heroes, when bodybuilders and models replaced actors. The narcissism inherent in the whole concept is the same as in the strutting rock stars, movie stars, celebrities of all kinds, and self-important people (Karens et al).

Some of my favorite 70's music wasn't made by rock stars, it was made by humble progressive bands (well, some had narcissistic stars in them) but then some great music came from bands like Van Halen (2 incendiary narcissists that we know of in that band! 3 if you count Sammy). Sometimes they can be extremely talented. And they do make for some entertaining entertainment. To see a humble, introverted superhero look at the trailers for Shang Chi. The guy doesn't seem like a superhero at all, more like a quiet, shy tourist walking around lost and too afraid to ask anybody for directions. And then suddenly he goes into his Kung Fu moves and he's like a rock star superhero. Bipolar superheroes? A superhero really needs to be confident and extraverted. At least the ones that have been successful so far.

Just thinking my way through this.

 

I think you're stretching the definition of narcissism a little far. Loki? Obviously a narcissist, or some sort of psychopath anyway. But I've been watching through the MCU films recently, and honestly is Captain America a narcissist? Is Black Widow? Hawkeye? Hulk is his own thing, but Bruce Banner doesn't seem very narcissistic to me. I'm not quite seeing it.