| Author |
|
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:05pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
My question to people who love grim and gritty is: Why couldn't realheroes exist; people who sacrifice and toil for the benefit of thehuman race. They may get personal satisfaction from knowing they'remaking a difference. Why is this so hard to believe?
Koroush and Brad (since both of you posed the question),
I reckon such people do exist, but I also think they're extraordinarily rare. I think that people who are selfish, corrupt, kinky, and just plain whacko like the characters in Watchmen are way, way, way more common. I wish it were not so, and I find the vision of genuinely noble and altruistic superheroes inspiring.
In the end, though, I believe that our species in the aggregate is little better than a bunch a savage chimps with less body hair and a larger vocabulary. I am thus profoundly greatful that one of our ilk does not have the powers of Superman.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2830
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:11pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
And Doug that's the point...superheroes should NOT be portrayed as just like us. They should be portrayed as BETTER than us. Yes, they can face the same problems and challenges. But they should be the example of the best in human nature in confronting these challenges. They are (should be) something to aspire to.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:20pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Joel - right on!
Koroush - no biggie!
Victor - but Spider-Man still did the right thing because "with great power there must also come great responsibility." He wasn't necessarily miserable, or depressed - he was making a sacrifice for the greater good by being a real hero, something he learned from his Uncle Ben. Even in the worst of times, losing out on Betty Brant, being insulted by JJJ, feeling down about Aunt May's health and needing to pay bills, he still did the right thing BECAUSE it was the RIGHT THING. And when he did start to doubt himself, he got re-inspired by Johnny Storm!
Look back at those early Lee/Ditko stories - he was a kid learning how to be a better person, and in the end he did what was right for the benefit of others, not himself. Welcome fame, he ignored. Action was his reward.
Doug - So real heroes are rare. So are real villains. In the DCU and Marvel U, they are not so rare. Why does that mean Batman has to be a prick? Because in real life, the odds of someone being as good and noble as Batman are low? The real life odds of someone being the Riddler are pretty low too. And the last time I saw Clayface robbing a bank, I was too scared to even take a picture with my cell phone.
But let's let our heroes in the comics be made more human by making sure they represent all of us, instead of the BEST of us.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:22pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Damnit Joel! Quit reading my mind with your telepathic powers!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:27pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The funny thing is, we supposedly celebrate "everyday heroes" such as firemen, doctors, paramedics, even soldiers. So the human race must somehow - even if mistakenly - believe that such people are not that rare. Yet as soon as we spot a super hero now we are to automatically suspect that their power is likely to have corrupted them in one way or another?
Batman for example is supposed to be motivated by personal demons resulting from his parents' death, but early on he learned not to become as vicious as those he is hunting. If he lets his animal side loose, it's a steady spiral into the sewer for the character. The only thing which keeps Batman afloat, both in the original comics and the movies, is that he has boundaries, he is not a pathological killer in a bat suit.
But in Dark Knight Returns he becomes a grim killing machine, a poster boy for the anti-authoritarian crowd. Dark Knight Returns proclaims loudly that the ends apparently do justify the means.
Take the character V from V for Vendetta. He's almost the same as Batman in concept, but without morals or boundaries. In fact that's the point of V, he's meant to be just as evil as he is good. You could take his story as a cautionary tale about revenge gone awry, but unfortunately he has become popular as a symbol against authority, especially after the romanticized movie version, proving once again that apparently the ends justify the means.
I get the feeling this is a result of the average reader projecting their own inability to distinguish basic concepts of morality onto their favorite superheroes.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 6:47pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I don't reckon I really disagree with most of you folks as much as it might seem. The whole grim and gritty thing has gotten way out of control since the 1980s. It's inappropriate to take an established character and warp him or her beyond recognition. It is for precisely that reason that I don't read new superhero comics but rather Essentials and Showcases almost exclusively these days. I simply have no interest in following the adventures of a sociopathic Batman or an adulterous, self-righteous Scott Summers.
I just don't think that a more cynical or deconstructionist take on the genre is automatically a bad thing. Watchmen was a valid examination of what humans might be like with super-powers (With great power comes great neuroses). Even The Dark Knight Returns worked fine for me as an imaginary tale (What if Batman was a bitter, alcoholic fascist?). I only take issue with it when the deconstructed version of the superhero becomes the norm rather than an interesting change of pace.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2830
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 7:00pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I agree Doug!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 7:21pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Actually, upon further consideration, maybe 1986 was not the key year for "grim 'n gritty." Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were undoubtedly deconstructions, but they left established continuity intact. 1987's Batman: Year One was an in continuity, post-crisis reboot, but one in which Batman and Gordon were clearly younger versions of the characters which Miller had worked with in DKR.
Thus, that was the point at which Miller's fascist vigilante stopped being an imaginary tale and became the official DC Batman. Fast forward two decades and now all we have left is the "goddamn Batman."
I still wonder, however, if even had all that not happened, would we have a comic industry successfully selling books to kids? I bet if Moore and Miller had not written the darker toned stuff that someone else would have. Perhaps, as I wrote earlier, their work was a symptom rather than the cause of the superhero comic's fall from prominence as an entertainment for young folks.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2830
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 7:39pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"Actually, upon further consideration, maybe 1986 was not the key year for "grim 'n gritty." Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were undoubtedly deconstructions, but they left established continuity intact. 1987's Batman: Year One was an in continuity, post-crisis reboot, but one in which Batman and Gordon were clearly younger versions of the characters which Miller had worked with in DKR. " I see what you're saying...but I would argue that 1987 (and Batman Year One) is where we started seeing the results of 1986's Watchmen and DKR. Those were the books everyone started to imitate. (Why couldn't it have been Man of Steel instead?!) The problem is, they were using in-continuity, previously established characters to do so. I still wonder, however, if even had all that not happened, would we have a comic industry successfully selling books to kids? An interesting "what if" to be sure. I would argue that the comic industry WOULD be successful selling books to kids (or, I prefer, to all-ages), because that is exactly what Manga books are successfully doing today. Maybe not as successful as in decades past...but certainly much more successful than today's abysmal sales numbers.
Edited by Joel Tesch on 15 November 2009 at 7:40pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Victor Rodgers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 8:00pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Victor - but Spider-Man still did the right thing because "withgreat power there must also come great responsibility." He wasn'tnecessarily miserable, or depressed - he was making a sacrifice for thegreater good by being a real hero, something he learned from his UncleBen. Even in the worst of times, losing out on Betty Brant, beinginsulted by JJJ, feeling down about Aunt May's health and needing topay bills, he still did the right thing BECAUSE it was the RIGHT THING.And when he did start to doubt himself, he got re-inspired by JohnnyStorm!
Look back at those early Lee/Ditkostories - he was a kid learning how to be a better person, and in theend he did what was right for the benefit of others, not himself.Welcome fame, he ignored. Action was his reward.
*****
Thats what I mean. He did the right thing because it was right not because he would be happy. But he would still feel a bit down after he saved the day and was still villified by some.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 8:04pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Just as a bit of insight into what I assume is a typical fanboy take on grim and gritty, the following is a summary of a review of Dark Knight Returns from Cracked.com:
QUOTE:
- Along with The Watchmen, it helped usher in a new era of comics with a darker, less unintentionally gay tone.
- Proved that Batman can even make a fool out of Superman in a fistfight.
- Made the Green Arrow relevant again.
|
|
|
This appears to be the audience these comics are aimed at. Whether kids can be drawn back into the comics fold or not is one issue, but as John Byrne has mentioned, why have comics turned into a niche to service these types of jerks?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 15 November 2009 at 9:15pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Along with The Watchmen, it helped usher in a new era of comics with a
darker, less unintentionally gay tone.•• Does this mean WATCHMEN and DKR had an intentionally gay tone? (Word to the unwise: when superheroes start to seem "gay", it's time to find
another hobby!)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
