Here is the single greatest problem with fans and pros alike, in this genre. The definition of "superhero" has become "guy in costume who fights badguys."

Is this just a debate about semantics? Or about discomfort with works that blur the lines of genres?  Watchmen doesnt fit neatly into any one category and that's one of the reasons it was so absorbing. Adding the moral ambiguity of noir fiction to the lofty ideals of the super hero world made the story that much more interesting.

In general, though, so long as a work is well written and illustrated, I don't much care whether its categorized as a "super hero" comic or not. I'll evaluate it on its merits, not its label.

But a "superhero story" requires that there be superheroes in it. And "superhero" means something much more than guys with powers (or even not) in costumes. "The Iron Giant" is one of the best superhero stories ever put on film, yet the lead character doesn't wear a costume, and isn't even human.

Rorschach is not a hero. He's a maniac in a costume. Compare him to the Question, in his original form, and you'll see what I mean.

-------------------------

Wasn't Moore's whole point that you had to be a maniac to put a costume on in the first place and fight crime? The story seemed more social/political commentary than anything else.... Moore's take on the United States and his take on our ideals where superheroes are concerned. I think he really was trying to show how silly the whole thing was and how horrific it would be if "superheroes" did in fact exist. The story seemed to me to say.... There is no heroic ideal and people given powers and costumes would not do the right thing at all but the same shallow, evil things that people do given power....

I think is very well said. It was challenge to whole notion of super heroes and maybe the first to do so.

---------------------------

There is no heroic ideal and people given powers and costumes would not do the right thing at all but the same shallow, evil things that people do given power....

*******

Thats just flat out wrong. To suggest something like that, is to say there are no heroes in the world we live in.

Here's one I don't THINK has been mentioned. I very much dislike the  return/resurrection/whatever-it-was of Reed and Sue's second child. Kind of misses the whole point of JB's story which was that super-heroes lead insanely dangerous lives and should not be procreating. It wasn't just a story with a kewl downer ending, it had a point.

Echoing that thought, I think about 90 percent of the stories involving Franklin Richards never needed to be told.