Superheo Comics and their Fans

[Yora]

The last time I asked this question my comment was removed for some reason, so here it is again with its dedicated thread:

I don't get superhero comics.

The Iron Man movie and The Dark Knight were fun to watch, but the whole concept mystifies me. I don't expect to ever really like them, but at least I want to understand why they are such a huge phenomenon that has endured continously for almost a hundred years with still no end in sight.

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe. I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.

So please educate me: What appeal do people find in superhero comics? What makes the characters interesting and makes people want to follow the stories?

[Cen]

For me it's mosty nostalgia to the childhood - I started reading superhero comics because all the cool kids in neighbourhood were doing it (and the concept of all these superpowers was so cool for the 8yrs old child), after some time I discovered Sin City, Sandman, Vendetta, Watchmen, Wilq, Lucifer and moved on to well.. more mature stuff.

Now, though I realise that idea of people dressing up in funny costumes to beat up other people is ridicullous I still like from time to time to go to a comicbook store and read some Xmen or Superman

[Eldan]

That's probably why I never got into it. Superhero comics were never a thing here. I grew up on German Disney comics and French/Belgian adventure comics.

[Fragenstein]

It's escapist fantasy. Much like a modern episode of Top Gear, it's full of machines, skills and abilities that will never realistically find their way into my life. I can still watch those things being portrayed, however, and dream about them.

[Lord Raziere]

Why wouldn't I be interested in them?

These are people given strange fantastic powers, powers to do things beyond what we can normally do. I want to see what it means to have such powers and how people would react to them and live with such power everyday of their lives, to see how someone would change the world with such abilities and what it would mean to change the world with them.

Certainly more interesting than those boring shows with nothing but people shooting or talking at each other or stupid cartoons with deformed characters.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Why can't it be "just the action and display of super powers"? After all, in antiquity we had the Legend of Gilgamesh, Journey to the West, the Illiad, and various heroic stories from just about every culture. They were quite popular in their day. You could take just about any of them and drop them in a comic and sell it.

You could argue that superhero stories are nothing new. the only relatively modern part is putting the story in the form of a comic strip (in other words, a difference of media).

I can imagine in ancient Greece or Rome some philosopher complaining about depicting Icarus in wall paintings, although he admits that he quite liked the goat-song in the theatre.

[DiscipleofBob]

You rarely see new superheroes go the full spandex or similar silly outfit route, that was the product of past decades. It's more the fact that back in the day of their creation, it was expected that superheroes wear tights, probably so they could be differentiated from the rest of the generic artwork. For the same reason that all gangsters back then apparently wore fedoras, pinstripe suits, and had facial hair, though for some reason that trend went out over time.

Over time though, for concepts as silly as a man with every superpower ever (Superman), or a guy who dresses up like a bat and beats up bad guys with curiously themed objects (Batman), or a bunch of teenagers who just happened to get superpowers because Stan Lee/Jack Kirby (forget who was the original creator) said so, they eventually represented something more.

Superman became a beacon of idealized hope, what man could always aspire to be but never achieve, an almost religious icon.

Batman asked questions about the line between the sane and insane, between what was considered justice and criminal vigilanteism, and just how much of a sacrifice one could make for the greater good and whether or not it'd have any impact in the long run.

X-Men brought a new perspective to prejudice in the comics industry, and showed us a world where superheroes were hated and despised by the populace and yet they still saved us on a regular basis.

And while a lot of the costumes do look silly, we've already tried the alternative of "modernizing" the costumes to various extents and it's never worked well.

I personally don't buy comics unless I'm positive they're a worthwhile read (see: anything by Joss Whedon and anything with Deadpool), and even then I occasionally get disappointed (see: most of Civil War) and it's important to remember that 90% of everything in any media is trash.

[Selrahc]

There is no one simple answer to "Why are superhero comics popular", because different comics are popular for different reasons.

Here are ten reasons I like superhero comics. Not all of them will be applicable to all comics.

1. Sequential art is an interesting medium, and one I enjoy. Superhero comics are probably the most mainstream example of sequential art. It allows a lot of freedom with format, conveys a lot of information quickly, and can tell a story in a way that mixes some of the best aspects of novels and films.

2. Superhero comics are speculative fiction. I'm a sucker for sci-fi(and interested in fantasy too) and superhero comics cover that ground quite a lot.

3. Superhero comics are inventive. This kind of ties into the previous point, but seriously, at their best I am just wowed by the amount of ideas that are thrown in by the comics industry. Particularly if you stray away from big flagship series, or if you look at the beginning of the genre. Experimental and creative thought is rife.

4. Superhero comics can play with themes from all over the place. Mythology, philosophy, technology, literature, folklore... all are drawn from. Nothing is too big, nothing is too small. Superhero comics are a broad temple with a million different stories.

5. There are a lot of good story tellers working in the comics trade, and a good story is a good story.

6. Similarly, there are a lot of good artists working in comics. I'm not so much a fan of art(in general) as I am of stories. But there are good artists working in comics.

7. Superhero comics are soap operas. Much as they often come with macho overtones, a ongoing superhero comic(as opposed to limited series which are more traditional in storytelling structure) is normally a long running soap opera about the character, and it triggers a lot of the same buttons that keep people enjoying soaps. The difference is that in a Soap Opera, the stakes are so much lower. Nobody saves the world in Coronation Street.

8. The big name superheroes are strong archetypal figures, who do interesting things. That's generally fun to read about.

9. Comics are funny. Definitely not universal, but things like She-Hulk, Deadpool and Hercules have all had some genuinely good comedic moments.

10. Comics have an unlimited budget and a lot of creative freedom. In the same way that a novel can create something that would be damn near impossible to film, a comic can. Similarly comics outside the big names can more easily be marketed to adults, allowing mature themes.


Are there problems with the genre? You're damn right their are. But I think there is a lot of good too. I only read things I've heard good buzz about, or that has a creator I've read before and enjoyed. I'd say if you write off the medium you're doing yourself as much of a disservice as is generally the case when people write off entire creative mediums.

[AtlanteanTroll]

And while a lot of the costumes do look silly, we've already tried the alternative of "modernizing" the costumes to various extents and it's never worked well.


In the comics, perhaps, but really, did you see this guy running around in the X-Men films?

http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/w_3d/wolverine.gif

[DiscipleofBob]

In the comics, perhaps, but really, did you see this guy running around in the X-Men films?

http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/w_3d/wolverine.gif

They tried the black leather outfits for awhile in the comics too, but they eventually changed back because the brightly-colored spandex was less silly and jarring.

Now in the movies, brightly colored outfits do need ample justification because it's a different medium. The Avengers movies did a great job going into the justifications behind the costumes. For Iron Man, the red and gold has the same justification as a sports car. For Thor, it's because that was traditional Asgardian garb. For Captain America, it started out as a campy propaganda costume and eventually became the symbol to define the superhero as a universal standard-bearer.

[Fragenstein]

You rarely see new superheroes go the full spandex or similar silly outfit route, that was the product of past decades. It's more the fact that back in the day of their creation, it was expected that superheroes wear tights, probably so they could be differentiated from the rest of the generic artwork.

Well, a great deal of Superman's look was derived from that of the traditional circus strongmen. In fact, much of pulp fiction of the era made use of that design to communicate "this character is strong", without having to describe him as such. Shorts-over-tights? Don't let him hit you.

The cape I have less explanation for, other than that's the sort of thing a flashy boxer might wear on his way to the ring. I'm not even sure they played with those sorts of antics back then, but it did give him a more regal appearance.

Following the popularity of Superman, his design formed a template for later artists.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

I'm not sure if I understand the OP. Is it the funny costumes that are so perplexing? Superhero comics are basically action comics with costumes and powers.

Personally I think it's an escapist thing like others have mentioned. Superheroes allow a mix of the fantastic and the mundane. The big two comic companies are based on modern Earth, with variations based on what powers exist.
Heroes with secret identities, an average Joe working 9 to 5 and then becoming a hero when night falls or justice calls. It's a transformation process, whether by putting on a suit, reciting a phrase of power, or just getting angry. Yes, I know that most heroes retain their powers regardless of clothing, but the point is that the clothes are a visual cue for their change in role. No longer a helpless mortal, but an active force of justice. As vigilantes, they are independent of the authorities. They are the questing knights, the gunslingers, the demigods of modern fiction.

[Karoht]

I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.I take it you are viewing this from the perspective of having seen the films first, then looking at the source material? At which point, yes, totally agree that the source material (the comics) do look bizarre by comparison.

Pretend for a moment that you viewed it the other way around. That you saw the comics first, and films didn't exist. You might see the whole thing a bit differently. Indeed, that is how some of us saw it.


=======
As for what kept/keeps readers going with various comics?
-Character progression
-Plot progression
-The illusion of progression
-Regression. Rise and Fall is very dramatic.
-DRAMA
-Odd/weird plots (IE-Superman gets turned into a duck by magenta kryptonite)
-Comedy. I've laughed pretty darned hard at Spiderman comics in my day.
-Mystery. Batman lives and dies by this.
-Combat/matchups/Who would win? (look no futher than the VS threads)
-Themes, moods, and atmosphere.
-Imagination. Imagining how Spiderman backflips and then webswings into Venom followed by the classic Spidey web line throw is always going to be more awesome than any film.
-Titanism. Watching two superpowered people battle it out is one thing. Watching two superpowered people at their peak, fighting hard, cold, viscious, tactically, and dirty, in a titanic showdown with absolutely everything on the line? Aw yeah.
-Justice/Vigilantism. It's a power fantasy to take justice into one's own hands, for better or for worse.
-Villany. It's a power fantasy to try and take over the world. It's a power fantasy to stop the villian and save the day.
-Costumes can be and often are fetishized.
-Damsels in Distress and various situations.
-Self-Rescuing Damsels.

Yeah.

[darkblade]

Most of the reasons why I like superheroes in all their mediums have been mentioned by previous posters so I'll keep this to the one reason that has yet to be mentioned.

Superheroes represent a true melting pot of genres. There is nothing that is not allowed to show up in those stories as long as it can be made appropriately engaging. If for example you want a champion of ancient Gods to go up against a Mad Scientist (Captain Marvel/Shazam) or a man in powered armour to fight an alien dragon (Iron Man although you probably will never see Fin-Fang-Foom in any of the movies) it's fair game.

You couldn't write a regular fantasy short story about a soldier who sells his soul to the devil to return to life as a Hellspawn warrior to see his wife again as a variation on the Faustian theme and then follow it up with a sequel revealing that the man who killed him was a cyborg mercenary. That would raise too many questions from the audience who was expecting straight fantasy. Where you could do that though is in Superhero comics with that being the origin of Spawn.

[Lord Seth]

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe.That seems like describing Order of the Stick as "all I ever see is stick figures slashing or hacking other stick figures with sometimes a few spells thrown in" or Dungeons & Dragons as the similar "just a bunch of guys fighting monsters" or Lord of the Rings as "just a bunch of people wandering around" or Citizen Kane as "just a bunch of flashbacks" or Super Mario Bros. as "just a bunch of running and jumping." It's an utter caricature.


I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.The bolded makes me wonder exactly how much of modern comics you actually have read.

[Selrahc]

Most of the reasons why I like superheroes in all their mediums have been mentioned by previous posters so I'll keep this to the one reason that has yet to be mentioned: Superheroes represent a true melting pot of genres.

I already mentioned it! :smalltongue:

[darkblade]

I already mentioned it! :smalltongue:

Serves me right for skimming instead of reading all the posts fully.

[Faulty]

I dunno if this has been mentioned because I skimmed myself, but one thing I find is that superheroes provide characters I identify with a lot. Batgirl/Oracle/Barbara Gordon and Batwoman/Kate Kain especially feel like characters who provide something for me to identify with. "A Trans Girl's Guide to Gotham" (http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/06/04/a-trans-girls-guide-to-gotham/) by Natalie Reed provide a similar and interesting perspective.

[bmosley45]

I can totally see where you're coming from when checking out the super hero costumes and hyper-muscled bodies. Of course, then again, if you had powers and you used them to help (or hurt) people, you better wear a disguise to protect yourself and your family - - and now that you're wearing a mask, why not spice it up a little? If I could fly and had lightning powers, I wouldn't just wear a ski mask and call it a day.

[MCerberus]

Well I mostly read Deadpool right now, so that's mostly for the parody of the usual trappings.

[Robert Blackletter]

That seems like describing Order of the Stick as "all I ever see is stick figures slashing or hacking other stick figures with sometimes a few spells thrown in" or Dungeons & Dragons as the similar "just a bunch of guys fighting monsters" or Lord of the Rings as "just a bunch of people wandering around" or Citizen Kane as "just a bunch of flashbacks" or Super Mario Bros. as "just a bunch of running and jumping." It's an utter caricature.



This covers what I feel about the op, But I feel I must ask, do you like Greek legends of Heracles, the Legend of Gilgamesh, Norse myths about Thor or any older myths in that vain?

[Maxios]

Just a suggestion: read Watchmen :smallwink:.

[WalkingTarget]

Just a suggestion: read Watchmen :smallwink:.

Well, much like Citizen Kane is only really significant if you know the state of cinematography and film narrative structure that existed at the time it came out, Watchmen loses something if you aren't already familiar with comics as they existed in the mid-80s (and politics and whatnot).

They're both still good, but they have less impact without context (IMO).

[darkblade]

Just a suggestion: read Watchmen :smallwink:.


Well, much like Citizen Kane is only really significant if you know the state of cinematography and film narrative structure that existed at the time it came out, Watchmen loses something if you aren't already familiar with comics as they existed in the mid-80s (and politics and whatnot).

They're both still good, but they have less impact without context (IMO).

What Target said. Plus Watchmen will do nothing to show someone the appeal of more regular superhero stories. If anything it will drive them further away.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Superheroes are broadly speaking an ancient idea inseparable from the idea of a hero. Quite aside from Gilgamesh suggesting its literally the oldest idea in the book, you have straighter examples like Heracles and King Arthur. When shifted forward in time all comes around rather (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Gilgamesh) full (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Berserker_%28Fate/stay_night%29) circle. (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Saber_%28Fate/stay_night%29)

Now if you want to talk about the American Comic-book artistic aesthetic, that is simply a natural evolution. Skintight outfits are simple to draw and making them brightly colored rendered them easily distinctive. The Golden Age cheapo printing methods rewarded such designs. And from there once the aesthetic is established it becomes an expectation of the genre. One doesn't really ask how technobabble makes sense in Star Trek, or why a Magical Girl fights evil in a mini-skirt and leotard. A well designed outfit (http://comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/340/-superman_gary_frank_super.jpg) is not silly and stands the test of decades.

If you don't believe that example is well designed I assure you it is. One only has to look at the worst designs to see why. I'm sure you could come up with a genuinely silly outfit but don't worry... this one is better. (http://superversity.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cosmic-boy-grell.jpg)

Now why does a small but devoted fanbase buy comics, well why do people watch soap operas or good popcorn movies? And that's what comics are, heroically oriented soap operas. No its not the best thing ever written generally (with strong exceptions) but its reliably entertaining to wait and see what's going to happen. Try it out for a few months and before you know it you find yourself putting down a modest $20 a week to follow over a dozen storylines in a shared universe.

[Eldan]

So, as an utter newcomer who has a sort of vague interest, but is not really committed:

What should I read? The only American thing with superheroes in it that I ever read was Watchmen. Which was pretty good. Apart from that, I have seen all the new Marvel movies and I think all Batman movies.

Otherwise? Utterly new to this. I had never even heard the names Thor or Iron Man before their movies came out. Same for Green Lantern (didn't actually see that one.)

What's good? And hopefully short, since I'll probably have to order and import it.

[Xondoure]

So, as an utter newcomer who has a sort of vague interest, but is not really committed:

What should I read? The only American thing with superheroes in it that I ever read was Watchmen. Which was pretty good. Apart from that, I have seen all the new Marvel movies and I think all Batman movies.

Otherwise? Utterly new to this. I had never even heard the names Thor or Iron Man before their movies came out. Same for Green Lantern (didn't actually see that one.)

What's good? And hopefully short, since I'll probably have to order and import it.

Well short how? Individual comics aren't that long, and most people start out with random ones scattered across time, so they can serve as 20 page mini stories (though usually without much in the way of a conclusion.) Canon wise I wouldn't worry about it really. If you feel like your missing something the internet is your friend. So pick a series that looks interesting and start wherever is most convenient.

Personally I've always been a fan of the X-men but that's cause I like team dynamics. In general Marvel is better with the human side, and DC does the super hero part really well. If that makes any sense.

[JCarter426]

Well first off, I can't resist immediately pointing out that Batman isn't a superhero. Yeah, ok, he's a guy who dresses like a bat and fights crime, I guess if that's what you call a superhero then he's a superhero. But it's not just that he doesn't have superpowers... the character predates the Golden Age of superhero comics so there are inherent differences. He was based on Zorro and the Shadow, which predate Superman. Zorro, the Shadow, and Batman were all rich socialites with secret identities by night, standing up for the common man and fighting injustice without mercy - but Batman has certainly established his own identity, particularly with the modern incarnation's refusal to kill. Though the early Batman stories did help establish some key superhero story elements, such as sidekicks and rogues galleries, Batman's more of a pulp fiction antihero than a superhero.

But I guess my rant has a point to it... you can't just ask why an entire genre is popular... you might as well read or watch Twilight and ask why fantasy is popular. If there's one thing that's consistent about any fan base, it's that nobody agrees on anything; different things are popular for different reasons. So a better question would be why Marvel and DC have survived. And... well, they've survived for essentially the same reason; they try to appeal to a large audience. Popularity of superhero comics has waxed and waned over the past 74 years. The resurgence of readership is seemingly inevitable, even if it isn't always for the same reason, or even a clear one. I think in general it's because the writers run the show. There are a few cases of executive meddling, but for the most part the publishers give them full control. And because they're writing for characters that are in many cases much older than them, they're often not afraid of trying new things - and since the writers are often obsessive fans themselves, they've been waiting all their lives to try these new things. So this means they shake things up on a regular basis by messing messing with continuity, killing someone off, doing a crossover, adding another alternate timeline to the pile of universes, or whatever - it's essentially the same way a lot of TV shows survive, incidentally... by annoying people into submission. And I say that in the most positive light one can. :smalltongue:

And at the risk of repeating everyone... superhero stories are just sci-fi and/or fantasy set in the real world, featuring heroes with real lives and real emotions and real dreams and all that crap. The bright colored uniforms were meant to resemble costumes worm by circus performers back in the day; the idea was that heroes who are swinging around a lot need aerodynamic clothing; plus it was easy to draw and stood out from other genres and such. The original costumes worked for comics because most clothes were brightly colored anyway... in fact everything was brightly colored. Modern comics tend to have a more realistic style, so the costumes stand out more. And modern takes on the original designs have... kind of missed the point. Of course there's pressure to keep some kind of semblance what people have come to expect, the design they associate with the character, but strangely enough fewer people seemed to complain about the X-Men not wearing uniforms than they did about Brandon Ruth's Superman shield being too small* or Henry Cavill's suit being too shiny, or Ryan Reynolds' suit... uh... being too shiny. In short, keeping almost everything exactly the same but making it darker and edgier or starting with darker and edgier but painting it in the original colors doesn't please the fans (though I doubt it affects the box office numbers). Batman's outfit from The Dark Knight, for example, irritates me. Some people look at it and see Batman. I look at it and see a guy in body armor growling at me and pretending to be Batman.
I'd like to see a new, more realistic approach. Not completely new, not the original with more "modern" elements. I want something you would expect the character to actually wear, rather than what you've come to expect. But I don't really know what that is, I just have unreasonably high standards - although in Batman's case I can say that Batman doesn't need armor... he's Batman.

EDIT: The beginning of "How The Dark Knight Should Have Ended" (http://bcove.me/shmtxkls) is a great demonstration.

*and some complained that a certain part was too large, even after digital de-enhancement. But that's not relevant... after all, it's only mentioned in a footnote.

Now all that aside, I feel I should point out that superhero comics aren't very popular anymore. Readership numbers for any given DC or Marvel series are abysmal, and they make up the bulk of comic readership. According to these numbers (http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2012/2012-05.html), the last issue of Batman sold 134,000 copies, and it was the third highest seller that month; compare that to the 22 million tickets (http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=95261) sold for The Dark Knight on its first weekend. On its first weekend. But there are so many different series, that's how they remain successful. It's not from new viewers either; DC's New 52 campaign, designed to draw in new readers by rebooting all the major series, only ended up with 5% new readers (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/02/10/dc-comics-readers-survey-reports-new-52-readership-93-male/)... and that was considered a success. (Also, 7% are female and less than 2% are younger than 18. These numbers would fill me with shame if I were a regular reader. Ah, they still fill me with shame.)

There are a few things that plague the comics, which they can't seem to shake off despite all their efforts. One of them of course is the aged and convoluted continuity; but, as I just noted, reboots don't seem to help that much. Another major factor is the slow rate of release; monthly series worked when the stories were short and self contained, when there weren't a million television channels, when... a lot of other things, really. I don't think it's that people are impatient... it's just hard to keep people interested over such a long period. I've dropped a lot of series I genuinely enjoyed because I couldn't be bothered to keep track of when the next release was; in general I'm more inclined to wait for trade paperback releases, but cheapness and unreasonably high standards have taken hold over the years as well. So in short, I guess I'm perplexed too, for different reasons.

So, as an utter newcomer who has a sort of vague interest, but is not really committed:

What should I read? The only American thing with superheroes in it that I ever read was Watchmen. Which was pretty good. Apart from that, I have seen all the new Marvel movies and I think all Batman movies.

Otherwise? Utterly new to this. I had never even heard the names Thor or Iron Man before their movies came out. Same for Green Lantern (didn't actually see that one.)

What's good? And hopefully short, since I'll probably have to order and import it.
Honestly I'd suggest the DC animated universe over the actual comics that inspired them - Batman: The Animated Series, Superman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond (to a much lesser degree), and Justice League/Justice League Unlimited. It's probably blasphemy but I'm not afraid to say it - I prefer the cartoons more. Of course, the cartoons have inspired the comics too from time to time. Though I also enjoy some classics such as The Long Halloween (liked it better than Year One, but you'd have to read that first) and I try to catch up on the big events like Final Crisis, I don't have the patience to follow the DC universe regularly and I'm not much of a Marvel fan (with a few exceptions).

[Xondoure]

Really I imagine comics play second fiddle to merchandizing when it comes to comics now a days. And of course, the comics themselves are stuffed with advertisements, and are a necessary part of keeping these figures in the public eye. After all if we stopped getting new spider man serials I doubt we'd be seeing movies come out year after year.

[Selrahc]

Runaways Vol 1. Gets into the themes and ideas of life in a superhero verse, while avoiding a lot of tangled continuity. It's short, it's a complete story and it's fun. Written by Brian K. Vaughan the creator of "Y:The Last Man."

All Star Superman. Silver Age Goofiness done in the modern era in a compelling way. Written by Grant Morrison creator of "the Invisibles".

The Incredible Hercules: Sacred Invasion. Science mixed with technology as Hercules travels with boy genius Amadeus Cho and "The God Squad" on a quest to destroy the Skrull pantheon. Written by Greg Pak.

Batman: Long Halloween. A long Batman story, which showcases a lot of the character and his villains. Tells the story of the downfall of Harvey Dent and a war with the mafia families that used to run Gotham. Written by Jeph Loeb.

Cable and Deadpool. The entire series was pretty good... not sure which trade paperbacks I'd recommend particularly.

[Killer Angel]

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe.

If you can, read some Astro City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astro_City). The normal people PoV is commonly found in them... I highly recommend "Confession".

[Giggling Ghast]

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe.

Doesn't that also describe most fantasy, except that they're stabbing each other with swords and wearing Spock ears?

[KnightDisciple]

The last time I asked this question my comment was removed for some reason, so here it is again with its dedicated thread:

I don't get superhero comics.

The Iron Man movie and The Dark Knight were fun to watch, but the whole concept mystifies me. I don't expect to ever really like them, but at least I want to understand why they are such a huge phenomenon that has endured continously for almost a hundred years with still no end in sight.

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe. I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.

So please educate me: What appeal do people find in superhero comics? What makes the characters interesting and makes people want to follow the stories?

What do I find appealing? Well, that's a broad question, since there's so many characters and companies and universes.
I tend to be more "traditional", I guess, in that I like the more well-known heroes; Superman, Batman, Captain America, Iron Man, and so on.
But why, you ask?
Two reasons, I would say.
1.)They are very much a modern version of the mythical hero. Look back at all the hero-stories you see in antiquity, and look at many heroes. Some win by strength of arm, others by cunning. But their fanciful names and colorful costumes, combined with their superhuman skill and power (even Batman, there's no way a normal person could know that much!), purposefully makes them stand out and cements them in the common consciousness, at least among populations that adopted the medium in general.
Just flash the Superman "S" logo at...well, just about anyone, and I'd wager people all over the world would have at least a basic idea.
2.)For me, they are appealing because they tell a resonant story, that of Good versus Evil. They have paragons of each duking it out over lofty goals (control or destroy the world, save the world, etc). They are clear in their goals and intent, even if it's "unrealistic" for them to be so "transparent". Some of this links back to the mythic hero thing, but for me some of it is an appreciation of being able to get away from the frustrating demands of relativism in the world, where everything and nothing is right and wrong, often in the same breath.

What makes the characters interesting?
The whole package, really. I like Superman because he's the super-powered icon of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (in the best sense possible). I like Batman's role as a dark knight protector, one who acts like he's cold to the world, but is really a good man underneath. I like Captain America, the symbol of the best of America's ideals (I live in America, so, inevitable), a "mere mortal" (compared to many) who manages to stand up to the most depraved beings in the universe, all while being the so-called "Aryan ideal" his Nazi enemies clamored after (yet also being the complete opposite, in his embrace of diversity and democracy!).

I do not like when characters who were good, upstanding individuals are made to be terrible jerks just to make the story "modern" or "relevant".

Which is why these days I focus on the live-action movies, the various animated series, and various one-shot graphic novels, Elseworlds, or other books that aren't concerned with the over-arching (and overly flawed) vision espoused by the administrations at Marvel and DC

Nothing ticks me off more than things like how Billy Batson is now a terrible person, but still somehow becomes Captain Marvel, or Superman's sort of a creepy stalker dude, or Spiderman's marriage is still sold to the Devil, or a bunch of other things that are just "blech".
As far as I'm concerned, super-gritty and "realistic" (because there's not any people in the world as honest and upright and good as Superman, amiright?) characters should be their own brand/line/whatever. If people love the Plutonian stories (what I've seen on various places, I don't like much at all), that's fine, but don't turn Superman into the Plutonian.
The Authority isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy it, fine, but don't shove it into the DC mainstream and steal J'onn/Martian Manhunter away to be in that series.

Basically, I think comics are at their best when they're trying to present stories of hope and good guys fighting against bad guys and such. When the waters get muddied and they try to make everyone "gritty", it never ever ever works.

[Lord Raziere]

mythical heroes?

Uh dude. mythical heroes weren't morally high at all. mythical heroes were big jerks who did awesome things.

If anything, the jerkishness tendency you see is a regression. They are just doing it wrong by applying to pre-existing characters with their own stories.

Me, I prefer to combine a gritty world with hopeful heroes. Cause I hate heroes who are idealistically naive and do stupid things just because they are "honorable" or "a messiah" and such. Sure, I agree that jerkishness can be taken too far and warp things unnecessarily, but I also don't like heroes who are too "good" to actually get anything done because they hold to some principle or some naive belief or whatever too much.

[KnightDisciple]

mythical heroes?

Uh dude. mythical heroes weren't morally high at all. mythical heroes were big jerks who did awesome things.

If anything, the jerkishness tendency you see is a regression. They are just doing it wrong by applying to pre-existing characters with their own stories.

Me, I prefer to combine a gritty world with hopeful heroes. Cause I hate heroes who are idealistically naive and do stupid things just because they are "honorable" or "a messiah" and such. Sure, I agree that jerkishness can be taken too far and warp things unnecessarily, but I also don't like heroes who are too "good" to actually get anything done because they hold to some principle or some naive belief or whatever too much.
Some mythic heroes were jerks, some weren't.

But you'll notice I separated out "they're modern myths" from "I like them because they have stories of good and evil". Because those are two separate things, and I didn't try to innately link them. I was simply explaining the appeal I see in superhero comics.

I'm not getting into an actual debate about whether heroes should have principles or not, that's not germane to the original conversation.

[Lord Seth]

Basically, I think comics are at their best when they're trying to present stories of hope and good guys fighting against bad guys and such. When the waters get muddied and they try to make everyone "gritty", it never ever ever works.Never? I thought it worked with Watchmen as well as some other cases. Or are you referring to doing that with already-existing characters rather than new ones?

[Selrahc]

Basically, I think comics are at their best when they're trying to present stories of hope and good guys fighting against bad guys and such. When the waters get muddied and they try to make everyone "gritty", it never ever ever works.

What a ludicrous statement.

[KnightDisciple]

Never? I thought it worked with Watchmen as well as some other cases. Or are you referring to doing that with already-existing characters rather than new ones?

I should have clarified that as "it never works with characters previously established as less gritty".

The fact that I said I don't mind separate lines that have "grittier" stories existing should tell testament to that.

My point was that trying to make Superman or Spiderman or any of those characters suddenly gritty and grey and "extreme" hasn't ever properly worked, at least so far as I can tell.

[Selrahc]

My point was that trying to make Superman or Spiderman or any of those characters suddenly gritty and grey and "extreme" hasn't ever properly worked, at least so far as I can tell.

Spiderman has always been gritty. The Lee/Ditko Spidey was pretty dark stuff at times, only softening when Ditko left and Romita joined, shifted to accommodate Romita's romance comics background.

Marvel in general was founded on the principle of "Heroes with feet of clay". Heroic figures who weren't the shining paradigms of perfection. Pathos and grit were an inherent part of all the headline Marvel characters, and all of them had deep personal flaws to go alongside the heroism.

Disliking it when it's done poorly is fine. Saying that adding ambiguity to heroic figures is inherently a bad or impossible to work concept is just ridiculous.

[Dienekes]

I should have clarified that as "it never works with characters previously established as less gritty".

The fact that I said I don't mind separate lines that have "grittier" stories existing should tell testament to that.

My point was that trying to make Superman or Spiderman or any of those characters suddenly gritty and grey and "extreme" hasn't ever properly worked, at least so far as I can tell.

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?
The Dark Knight Returns [I know, Batman is gritty and whatnot but this is the comic often pointed out as bringing the gritty back, or at least re-popularizing the gritty take on the hero]
The Night Gwen Stacy Died
Superman: Red Son

Mind you gritty doesn't have to mean poor art, guns, and pointless rage filled up pointless panels of the hero screaming curses at his opponent as thousands of innocents are murdered gruesomely before the readers eyes.

Those gritty reboots just suck and should be ignored. But you can definitely have gritty comics of previously non-gritty heroes and make them work.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Spiderman has always been gritty. The Lee/Ditko Spidey was pretty dark stuff at times, only softening when Ditko left and Romita joined, shifted to accommodate Romita's romance comics background.

Marvel in general was founded on the principle of "Heroes with feet of clay". Heroic figures who weren't the shining paradigms of perfection. Pathos and grit were an inherent part of all the headline Marvel characters, and all of them had deep personal flaws to go alongside the heroism.

Disliking it when it's done poorly is fine. Saying that adding ambiguity to heroic figures is inherently a bad or impossible to work concept is just ridiculous.

There's a relevant difference between just dark and gritty. Spidey can on occaison be dark and serious and so forth like any comic. He still does it in brightly colored spandex while trash-talking and wise-cracking. While fighting villians who are also outlandish and broadly animal themed.

While washed over now they tried for awhile making Peter all grim and serious and angry... it eventually went directly into the Clone Saga where Ben Reilly was supposed to be a counter-point in being more like Peter used to be. Needless to say this is not the most well remembered era of Spidey et al.

And there are lines. It great to occaisonally tell a story where say a supporting character dies. Gwen Stacy's death, a classic. It stands out because its an exception, because Spidey saves people. It would be entirely different if say everyone Peter Parker ever loved (including Aunt May) all met horrible and tragic ends on screen leaving Spiderman a dark vigilante who stalks the night chucking those filthy criminal **** spawn off buildings only to fire a web-shooter just so as to snap their necks instead and leave them broken reminders to the worthless dogs of the criminal underworld while Peter Parker lives off acquiring their own criminal earnings and drowning his time without his face on in a sea of booze, while only finding solace in whores WHORES WHORESGRIMDARKWHORES

Excuse me I shouldn't have had that Miller before posting.

Speaking of which I think there's a way to demonstrate everything good in comics (with a tolerable amount of silly) and everything bad in comics. Namely All Star Superman and All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder, two similarly named and conceptualized books that could not be more different. Hell they even counter point the good and the bad in publishing, one being started after the other and finishing before in reasonably good order the other one of the horrible titles only published seemingly at random.

(Oh by without going off the deep end consider this statement: Gwen Stacy shoves women into the fridge. While not an example its the sort of thing that happens in practice by trying to get superheroes away from the core of themselves without a superior writing and a good purpose other then "darker and edgier" in mind)

[Selrahc]

There's a relevant difference between just dark and gritty

No, in this context they're synonymous. You're just railing against poor implementation.


Of course the Clone Saga Spidey and All Star Batman were poor. How about Superman: Red Son or Death of Gwen Stacy? Darkness can be done right, and it can be done wrong. Don't say it's not a valid tool in storytelling though.

[Lord Seth]

Of course the Clone Saga Spidey and All Star Batman were poor.Enh...I didn't read it, but I've heard a bunch of people say that the start of the Clone Saga was actually really good, the problem is that it got incredibly dragged out to try to capitalize on its popularity.

[Jayngfet]

The last time I asked this question my comment was removed for some reason, so here it is again with its dedicated thread:

I don't get superhero comics.

The Iron Man movie and The Dark Knight were fun to watch, but the whole concept mystifies me. I don't expect to ever really like them, but at least I want to understand why they are such a huge phenomenon that has endured continously for almost a hundred years with still no end in sight.

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe. I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.

So please educate me: What appeal do people find in superhero comics? What makes the characters interesting and makes people want to follow the stories?

The plotlines in comics tend to be more complex than the plotlines in movies, due to the fact that it's faster and cheaper to get content out faster. I'm currently going through the older green lantern corps issues from the silver age, and the fact is that while we get hints of comic entities, most of it took a back seat to the human drama.

While Hal punches out a new badguy every week and once in a blue moon it'll be a space monster, the real ongoing plot you're meant to come back for is the way Hal Jordan's life has basically been overtaken by being a hero, and how his girlfriend basically leaves him to pursue the Green Lantern. Heck, if he was just a spandex-clad monster puncher he'd never have gotten into half of these fights, because so many of the conflicts started with things that affected him personally, or else involved one of his friends getting mixed up in everything.

A good, regular comic is a gripping and fast paced story that takes advantage of the it's unique dynamics. Hero comics are just one genre, it doesn't matter if you're reading Batman or Disney or Orc Stain, provided it does everything it's supposed to.

[KnightDisciple]

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is...it's like an anti-gritty story. The whole point is that Superman proves that his no-killing stance works to the grim and violent guys. I'm not sure how that's a good example.

Superman: Red Son is less "dark and gritty" and more "thought experiment".

As Soras Teva Gee said, Gwen Stacy's death was a moment of dark tragedy in an otherwise bright series.

DKR is actually kind of borderline, looking back. It had some good elements, but the bad parts of Miller's tendencies were starting to leak through (I point you to Catwoman's fate). And it's one of the things acknowledged as kicking of at least part of the Iron Age, which...yeah. Comics are better for trying to leave the Iron Age behind.

Selrahc: When I'm speaking, "dark" and "gritty" are not synonymous.
To me, "dark" is when authors try to seriously grapple with tragic events, like the death of a loved on, but those events don't happen often, and they're not what defines the book (that is, that's not what the book is about).
"Gritty" is turning a book into Miller time. Especially if I toss it in quotes.

So I would agree that "darkness" (aka "tragedy") can be done right. "Grittiness" is...a lot rarer to see done right.

[Soras Teva Gee]

No, in this context they're synonymous. You're just railing against poor implementation.


Of course the Clone Saga Spidey and All Star Batman were poor. How about Superman: Red Son or Death of Gwen Stacy? Darkness can be done right, and it can be done wrong. Don't say it's not a valid tool in storytelling though.

KnightDisciple has it, as pertinent here there is a difference in what's being talked about. I would characterize gritty here as being more aggressive and ultimately pessimistic about itself, not just dark but grimdark. You can be dark but still have an underlying message of hope or optimism. Frank Miller rights gritty with varying amounts of crazy. Grant Morrison writes many stories that while dark are ultimately hopeful, I think Final Crisis would be a good case in point. Very dark I'd say, but centered firmly around the self-assembling-hyper-story of the symbolized of hope and miracles.

And its not that "gritty=bad dark" here, you can still do high quality work that way. I'd say Watchmen just makes itself there and is a great story. Plenty of stuff in Vertigo over the years would rank. Seriously John can you beat anything without it killing someone, who was probably a friend of yours, before you prove yourself that most Magnificent of Bastards?

Now to your examples, Superman: Red Son would not be gritty. Its not even that dark. It can't quite decide who's the hero and villain, but both can be said to win. Its certainly not sunshine, ponies, and rainbows mind you, but I personally remember it as only marginally darker then the comic book norm. And perhaps even more importantly it would be ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE for anything even remotely like it to be published in Action Comics or Superman. Which I think is a pertinent point you are not accounting for here. Comics storylines do not exist in a vacuum, even things out-of-continuity have an effect on the ongoing writing. Certain stories like Nextwave, The Killing Joke, or Kingdom Come are so powerful they can't be ignored and have direct effect irregardless of their canonical status.

So let's go to Gwen Stacy. I haven't read it so just have extracts to go off of. I would say though from the age it is probably only moderately dark from our point of view. Afterall Gwen is killed by a man in a green and purple halloween outfit and the writing almost surely has that pre-80s comics cheese to it. However we can probably grant that it is a good story, but more importantly one with consequences.

Gwen Stacy was if not the first the first well known case where a major supporting character was so shockingly killed off. However we can see the trend it started as a fairly sizable marker of Silver --> Bronze comic ages. People can now die in comics. Which while not nessecarily bad has evolved to be perhaps more negative then good. Gwen Stacy leads fairly directly to disposable women shoved into refrigerators to provide easy drama for their superhero boyfriends. See the uncomfortable subtext to that?

Heck we can go further, allowing cast members to die in comics allows heroes to die too. Thus giving rise to the annoying C-lister brought out of obscurity to be a Red Shirt. Does anybody remember Goliath and Clor with as meaningful story events... anyone?

Now lets be clear I am not suggesting that no one can die in comics. However applying the idea that comics have to be darker and edgier to stories that have to end has inevitable consequences when what was rare becomes common place.


Enh...I didn't read it, but I've heard a bunch of people say that the start of the Clone Saga was actually really good, the problem is that it got incredibly dragged out to try to capitalize on its popularity.

I've heard that before and its not entirely untrue because there are good elements, but doesn't change that it was extended. And from my recollection even early on you have just too many elements being juggled to make anything but a bloated overly long story. There's maybe a good story about Ben Reilly, Peter Parker, MJ getting pregnant, and Aunt May dying as a true test of character for Peter Parker. Its is absolutely torn to shreds by the Jackal, Kaine, Judas Traveller, Scier, Seward Trainer, and Spidercide to say nothing of it all being a plot by Norman Osborn that would make Light Yagami cry "Oh that's just BS!" when revealed.

[Dienekes]

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is...it's like an anti-gritty story. The whole point is that Superman proves that his no-killing stance works to the grim and violent guys. I'm not sure how that's a good example.

It also turns a joke villain into a mass murdering psychotic who commits suicide. Then the torture of Pete Ross. Seems darker and grittier to me.


Selrahc: When I'm speaking, "dark" and "gritty" are not synonymous.
To me, "dark" is when authors try to seriously grapple with tragic events, like the death of a loved on, but those events don't happen often, and they're not what defines the book (that is, that's not what the book is about).
"Gritty" is turning a book into Miller time. Especially if I toss it in quotes.

So I would agree that "darkness" (aka "tragedy") can be done right. "Grittiness" is...a lot rarer to see done right.

I think here's the problem. For me dark and gritty just means going through more mature themes that tend to have a less than happy-go-lucky view of nature. When Gwen Stacy is killed, or a Robin gets crowbarred to death, or Bullseye claims another of Daredevil's loved ones that's a dark and gritty story.

Miller time, in my opinion is technically dark and gritty, but is pushing the boundaries a bit too close to Grimdark. That too would be fine, if most of the stories weren't stupid.

[Selrahc]

Redefining the term gritty to mean "Anything dark that I don't like" is a silly idea. Again, I would say you're just railing against poor implementation of certain themes.

[Maxios]

I consider dark to be stuff like a character dying (Such as the earlier mentioned death of Gwen Stacey), and I consider gritty stuff to be the more street-level, realistic stuff.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Redefining the term gritty to mean "Anything dark that I don't like" is a silly idea. Again, I would say you're just railing against poor implementation of certain themes.

I think ignoring posts that openly contradict that assumption and provide examples is even sillier personally.


I consider dark to be stuff like a character dying (Such as the earlier mentioned death of Gwen Stacey), and I consider gritty stuff to be the more street-level, realistic stuff.

There is truth in this too, and perhaps better for the general use of the word though not how it was being used here.

[Selrahc]

I think ignoring posts that openly contradict that assumption and provide examples is even sillier personally.




KnightDisciple has it, as pertinent here there is a difference in what's being talked about. I would characterize gritty here as being more aggressive and ultimately pessimistic about itself, not just dark but grimdark. You can be dark but still have an underlying message of hope or optimism.

There is you making an apparently completely unsupported statement about the difference between dark and gritty, as part of redefining the terms.

You can be gritty and have an underlying message of hope and optimism. You can be gritty and tell a passive tale. You can be dark and be pessimistic. You're taking non technical terms that aren't prescriptively used, and redefining them to take on a particular meaning. Based on nothing much.

I think that's silly.

Arguments about how destruction of characters can lead to decay of a shared universe, and how women are treated in comics are unrelated.

[CapnRedBeard]

Comics are easy to understand the appeal of. There is true art. There are stories. There are clearly defined good people and bad people.

My question is why do people like shows about food? There are no stories. Calling it art...is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch when I cannot even eat it. Even if I could...art is a stretch in regards to food imo. OMG that guy put peanut butter and chocolate on a hamburger...he's DaVinci!

Worse still are the food shows that center around some fat guy eating food. Really? Civilization has sunk THIS low? Watching a fat guy eat moose balls is entertainment these days?

[CapnRedBeard]

Entertainment in general is stupid fun for the most part. If your avatar looks like a rudimentary drawing of an elf or something...you too appreciate the joy of "silly."

Monte Python made a whole group of people rich by the virtue of silliness. Heck if one looks at the entirety of English humor for the past two generations...silly would be THE word most often used in reviews.

Ni.

[CapnRedBeard]

If it weren't for comics...would anyone here have ever heard of Neil Gaiman?

Hmmm?

[Soras Teva Gee]

There is you making an apparently completely unsupported statement about the difference between dark and gritty, as part of redefining the terms.

You forgot something:


KnightDisciple has it, as pertinent here there is a difference in what's being talked about. I would characterize gritty here as being more aggressive and ultimately pessimistic about itself, not just dark but grimdark. You can be dark but still have an underlying message of hope or optimism. Frank Miller rights gritty with varying amounts of crazy. Grant Morrison writes many stories that while dark are ultimately hopeful, I think Final Crisis would be a good case in point. Very dark I'd say, but centered firmly around the self-assembling-hyper-story of the symbolized of hope and miracles.

Oh also I explain quite clearly how gritty is being used here in this discussion. I would venture "grimdark" as being more generally applicable what's being discussed but that's just playing semantic games as words are tools that mediate ideas and concepts, individual choices (or even in cases mistakes) do not negate the underlying ideas at hand.

Oh I also said:


And its not that "gritty=bad dark" here, you can still do high quality work that way. I'd say Watchmen just makes itself there and is a great story. Plenty of stuff in Vertigo over the years would rank. Seriously John can you beat anything without it killing someone, who was probably a friend of yours, before you prove yourself that most Magnificent of Bastards?

To which your next response response was:


Redefining the term gritty to mean "Anything dark that I don't like" is a silly idea. Again, I would say you're just railing against poor implementation of certain themes.

Which was what I was of course directly talking about you ignoring.


You can be gritty and have an underlying message of hope and optimism. You can be gritty and tell a passive tale. You can be dark and be pessimistic. You're taking non technical terms that aren't prescriptively used, and redefining them to take on a particular meaning. Based on nothing much.

Well if you want to get truly technical there is nothing dark about the word gritty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gritty) as far as actual definitions. It would only be an enviromental factor for its primary defintion, or apply to essentially any heroic tale ever anyways for the secondary one.

So we are into more colloquial and local usages of the words, many of which can probably be said to be improper, anyways. Of course language is rife with improper usage of words, its how they evolve over time. So perhaps we should just grant we are all more flexible in our nomenclature?


Arguments about how destruction of characters can lead to decay of a shared universe, and how women are treated in comics are unrelated.

Of course they're not, you are arguing that we merely object to bad implementation of an IMHO overly broad view of "dark" in comics. However when even good implementation has consequences for the greater 'verses of 616 and the DCU it becomes relevant. Because they are of course symptoms of making comics darker in tone.

Now whether said consequences actually constitute a reason that not even good implementation should be allowed is not true, but it certainly means there is something more complex to consider then just disliking bad examples.

I would say instead that while occasional diversions are just fine, great even... the general tone of comics should not be dark nor should the lack thereof be seen as a problem for comics. Because you will not just have good implementation, you inevitably will also have bad implementation.

[Robert Blackletter]

If it weren't for comics...would anyone here have ever heard of Neil Gaiman?

Hmmm?

Well I did watch neverwhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwhere) before touching his books or comics, and there are a fair few people who learnt about him from his Pratchett collaboration Good Omen. So yes people would have heard of him.

[Zevox]

So, as an utter newcomer who has a sort of vague interest, but is not really committed:

What should I read? The only American thing with superheroes in it that I ever read was Watchmen. Which was pretty good. Apart from that, I have seen all the new Marvel movies and I think all Batman movies.

Otherwise? Utterly new to this. I had never even heard the names Thor or Iron Man before their movies came out. Same for Green Lantern (didn't actually see that one.)

What's good? And hopefully short, since I'll probably have to order and import it.
If you don't even know which characters or teams may interest you, that makes things rather difficult. Everyone will simply point to the good stuff for characters they like - comics have been around for so long that there's pretty much good and bad of just about everything to go around.

A recommendation someone else gave to watch some of the animated series might actually help in that regard quite a deal. The Justice League (aka Justice League Unlimited, after the first couple seasons) cartoon would be a particularly good one, both because it's pretty good as a show in general and because it covers a lot of superheroes, starting with seven founding members of the League and expanding over time. In a similar vein other team shows such as the Teen Titans, the X-Men cartoons (of which there are three, with the original 90s one being closest to the comics to my understanding), or the currently ongoing Young Justice, may be good ones to check out as well. And of course several individual characters had their own cartoons, including Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Spider Man, and probably others I'm unaware of.

As for actual recommendations, I can obviously only give them based on what I've read, which is most Green Lantern stuff. The recent run of it (starting from about 2004) is a big ongoing set of stories where one leads into the next though, so expect setup for the next story in any given one of those you read. The places to start would be either "Green Lantern: Secret Origin" (modern retelling of Hal Jordan's origin story, contains foreshadowing for a major event much further down the road, but you don't need to understand that to enjoy it), "Green Lantern: Rebirth" (story of Hal Jordan's resurrection [long story short, he was killed in the 90s], the chronological start of the current set of story arcs; not really necessary compared to the others, but it does introduce each major character very nicely), or "The Sinestro Corps War" (one of if not the best story of the modern run, doesn't really require any previous stories to understand and enjoy, but basic knowledge of the major characters going in helps, which is why I mention "Rebirth"). All are collected in trades, though the Sinestro Corps War is long enough that it's two volumes.

Besides Green Lantern, I've only read a few things. Superman: Red Son is a good story that's entirely self-contained - it's basically a "what if?" story based on the premise of Superman's ship crashing in the Soviet Union instead of the US, and surprisingly well-done for a premise that would be as easy to get lazy with as that. "The Flash: The Dastardly Death of the Rogues" is a good one for the Flash, though I'd recommend against reading the books that come after that, since they pretty much solely exist to set up the reboot of the DC universe from last year. I haven't read much more than those, and what I have doesn't make a good starting point for comics in the least.

Zevox

[JCarter426]

If it weren't for comics...would anyone here have ever heard of Neil Gaiman?

Hmmm?
The only work of his I've seen is his episode of Doctor Who from last year. Though I had heard of him before that.

[Dr.Epic]

The last time I asked this question my comment was removed for some reason, so here it is again with its dedicated thread:

I don't get superhero comics.

The Iron Man movie and The Dark Knight were fun to watch, but the whole concept mystifies me. I don't expect to ever really like them, but at least I want to understand why they are such a huge phenomenon that has endured continously for almost a hundred years with still no end in sight.

All I ever see is people in funny clothes punching other people in funny clothes with normal people watching them in awe. I do make an exception for Batman who does occasionally get adaptations that have me interested, but for pretty much everything else, it seems like drawn versions of the Adam West show. Yes, it's fun in it's goofiness, but that really can't be what made generations of people pay money for new comics week by week. And it can't be just the action and display of super powers, because those would get stale after a few weeks.

So please educate me: What appeal do people find in superhero comics? What makes the characters interesting and makes people want to follow the stories?

Here: watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwuIwt4pRNI&feature=related) and be enlightened. There are a lot of social and psychological issues tied in with super heroes.

[WalkingTarget]

The only work of his I've seen is his episode of Doctor Who from last year. Though I had heard of him before that.

He was a semi-small time freelance journalist who managed to ride Alan Moore's coattails into doing slightly more serious comics than the mainstream was putting out at the time (i.e. Moore's work on Swamp Thing is what made DC think about similar new comics lines). A few limited-series or one-off collaborations with artist Dave McKean eventually segued into his version of The Sandman. The name recognition he earned and the contacts he made during that work is probably what allowed him to branch out into the career he has today (which includes short stories, novels, picture books, the occasional comic, and film and television screenplays).

If he hadn't started in comics, he might still have made it as a writer, but probably in a way vastly different from where he is now.

[Soras Teva Gee]

He was a semi-small time freelance journalist who managed to ride Alan Moore's coattails into doing slightly more serious comics than the mainstream was putting out at the time (i.e. Moore's work on Swamp Thing is what made DC think about similar new comics lines). A few limited-series or one-off collaborations with artist Dave McKean eventually segued into his version of The Sandman. The name recognition he earned and the contacts he made during that work is probably what allowed him to branch out into the career he has today (which includes short stories, novels, picture books, the occasional comic, and film and television screenplays).

If he hadn't started in comics, he might still have made it as a writer, but probably in a way vastly different from where he is now.

Specifically being well liked for his work on a rather obscure now mini-series named Black Orchid got DC to decide to give him The Sandman in the late 80s when DC wanted to do more mature works like Watchmen.

Also should probably mentioned that while Neil Gaiman's fairly well diversified as an author, he's has a name as a novelist and has some notable adaptations in other fields... but he has legend status in comics.

(Also we could probably argue Sandman as his Magnum Opus, I remember thinking American Gods could basically be an issue or two in one of the anthology volumes. Which was actually kinda disappointing)

[WalkingTarget]

Specifically being well liked for his work on a rather obscure now mini-series named Black Orchid got DC to decide to give him The Sandman in the late 80s when DC wanted to do more mature works like Watchmen.

Also should probably mentioned that while Neil Gaiman's fairly well diversified as an author, he's has a name as a novelist and has some notable adaptations in other fields... but he has legend status in comics.

(Also we could probably argue Sandman as his Magnum Opus, I remember thinking American Gods could basically be an issue or two in one of the anthology volumes. Which was actually kinda disappointing)

Yeah, I have a copy of Black Orchid. Good stuff.

American Gods covered a lot of the same themes that he'd worked with already (specifically, I thought it owed a lot to the Season of Mists segment of Sandman). Gaiman has been quick to point out that Sandman was the longest work he's written, so it's unsurprising that we could think of it as Magnum Opus. It's a little weird that it happened so early in his career as a writer.

[Selrahc]

(specifically, I thought it owed a lot to the Season of Mists segment of Sandman).

Oh? I can see some similar themes, but in general I would say American Gods is much closer to Brief Lives. Season of Mists has a bunch of fairly imperious gods, while Brief Lives has a much more American Gods presentation of gods as clinging on and surviving in the margins. And just on a superficial level, Brief Lives and American Gods are both about driving around America and talking to forgotten gods.

[WalkingTarget]

Oh? I can see some similar themes, but in general I would say American Gods is much closer to Brief Lives. Season of Mists has a bunch of fairly imperious gods, while Brief Lives has a much more American Gods presentation of gods as clinging on and surviving in the margins. And just on a superficial level, Brief Lives and American Gods are both about driving around America and talking to forgotten gods.

Good point. The mythology angle was what I was addressing (the reason so many beings wanted hell was because their power had begun to wane and having such "prime psychic real estate" would help them out), but you're right that Ishtar and Pharamond's situations are much better fits in their everyday dealings/compromises/adaptations (although Susano-o's explanation of interest in SoM also reminds me of this kind of angle too).

Anyway, opinion updated.

[JCarter426]

He was a semi-small time freelance journalist who managed to ride Alan Moore's coattails into doing slightly more serious comics than the mainstream was putting out at the time (i.e. Moore's work on Swamp Thing is what made DC think about similar new comics lines). A few limited-series or one-off collaborations with artist Dave McKean eventually segued into his version of The Sandman. The name recognition he earned and the contacts he made during that work is probably what allowed him to branch out into the career he has today (which includes short stories, novels, picture books, the occasional comic, and film and television screenplays).

If he hadn't started in comics, he might still have made it as a writer, but probably in a way vastly different from where he is now.
I said I had heard of him. :smalltongue: He's just one of many writers whose work I've been meaning to look into but I always put it off for one reason or another.

[WalkingTarget]

I said I had heard of him. :smalltongue: He's just one of many writers whose work I've been meaning to look into but I always put it off for one reason or another.

Having "heard of him" and seeing the one episode of Doctor Who he wrote isn't the same as knowing what the guy had done before that. :smalltongue: (edit - which is what I had to go on from your earlier statement :smallbiggrin:)

Anyway, it's probably obvious that I'm a fan. If you start reading Sandman at the beginning, know that the art can be off-putting at first (or, at least I have several friends who I can use as anecdotal evidence for it). The original artist on the comic, Sam Keith, freely admits that he was not a good fit for the book. They wound up switching artists/styles for the different story arcs, which I think worked out well for them overall.

[JCarter426]

Having "heard of him" and seeing the one episode of Doctor Who he wrote isn't the same as knowing what the guy had done before that. :smalltongue: (edit - which is what I had to go on from your earlier statement :smallbiggrin:)
Well, I did, I just haven't read any of it. :smalltongue: I have a friend who's in the same position; we're both always meaning to get around to reading Sandman. We're both just very busy; he hasn't even read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I'll get to Gaiman someday, I promise.

[Man on Fire]

and it's important to remember that 90% of everything in any media is trash.

Actually, only 5%, but things that are great is another 5%, rest is "so okay it's average".


They tried the black leather outfits for awhile in the comics too, but they eventually changed back because the brightly-colored spandex was less silly and jarring.

No, it was because fanboys didn't like they weren't like in their childhood. For example, John Byrne thought that Wolverine's yellow outfit is pure idiocy and gave him brown outfit. Once Jim Lee came he idn't liked that Logan doesn't have his original costume and gave him yellow outfit back. Then he went to Byrne and said he fixed the mistake Marvel made and returned to Byrne's original design, only to find out Byrne hates that design.

And personally, my favorite X-Men costumes are those uniforms from Morrisson's run, they gave them respectabiliy and some sort of unification, what they're wearing now is mostly very, very lame, especially yellow costumes that are there just because of nostalgia.

I also love Guardians of the Galaxy (http://geektyrant.com/storage/0999-post-images/guardians4132012.jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1 334331443291)uniforms (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091221043120/marveldatabase/images/4/4a/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_Vol_2_20.jpg), especially once everybody started wearing them. They give you the feeling of unity, you see those people are a team, not jsut a bunch of individuals.

And there are good modernizations of "classic" costumes - Nova looked quite stupid (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Nova_1_(1976).jpg/185px-Nova_1_(1976).jpg), before getting nice modernization (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/Nova1adigranov.jpg/250px-Nova1adigranov.jpg).


Well first off, I can't resist immediately pointing out that Batman isn't a superhero. Yeah, ok, he's a guy who dresses like a bat and fights crime, I guess if that's what you call a superhero then he's a superhero. But it's not just that he doesn't have superpowers... the character predates the Golden Age of superhero comics so there are inherent differences. He was based on Zorro and the Shadow, which predate Superman. Zorro, the Shadow, and Batman were all rich socialites with secret identities by night, standing up for the common man and fighting injustice without mercy - but Batman has certainly established his own identity, particularly with the modern incarnation's refusal to kill. Though the early Batman stories did help establish some key superhero story elements, such as sidekicks and rogues galleries, Batman's more of a pulp fiction antihero than a superhero.

Pulp genre is one of fundaments of superhero genre and Batman was one who introduced that part to the genre. But he still is a superhero.


I think in general it's because the writers run the show. There are a few cases of executive meddling, but for the most part the publishers give them full control.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. There is a strong executive control in Marvel and DC, editors tells writers what to do all the time, especially in big name titles. Many crappy stories are result of that - Cry For Justice writer James Robbinson was forced to kill Liian Harper by his editor, Spider-Man writer Joe Straczynski was forced to have Spider-Man make a deal with the devil because of Joe Quesada and his hated Superman story, Grounded was a direct result of being told by Dan Didio to write "down to Earth Superman story".


And because they're writing for characters that are in many cases much older than them, they're often not afraid of trying new things - and since the writers are often obsessive fans themselves, they've been waiting all their lives to try these new things.

But trying new things is good and is what comics with big names lacks - Batman, Superman, Avengers, Wolverine - they all have repeating the same stories over and over and over again, hell all current Batman comics do the same type of story at the same time. Writers are afraid of trying new things and that's what killed my love for such characters like Batman or Wolverine.


So this means they shake things up on a regular basis by messing messing with continuity, killing someone off, doing a crossover, adding another alternate timeline to the pile of universes, or whatever

No ,that's just editorial and writers prying on lowest common denominator.


Batman's outfit from The Dark Knight, for example, irritates me. Some people look at it and see Batman. I look at it and see a guy in body armor growling at me and pretending to be Batman.

I however look at it and see Batman I can respect, as opposed to Mary Sue he is in comics.


although in Batman's case I can say that Batman doesn't need armor... he's Batman.

batman doesn't need to take a crap in the moring...he's Batman. This is what killed the character for me, he can do everything, he doesn't need to do anything you don't like, he can beat anybody, he knows everything...all because he is Batman.


There are a few things that plague the comics, which they can't seem to shake off despite all their efforts. One of them of course is the aged and convoluted continuity; but, as I just noted, reboots don't seem to help that much. Another major factor is the slow rate of release; monthly series worked when the stories were short and self contained, when there weren't a million television channels, when... a lot of other things, really. I don't think it's that people are impatient... it's just hard to keep people interested over such a long period. I've dropped a lot of series I genuinely enjoyed because I couldn't be bothered to keep track of when the next release was; in general I'm more inclined to wait for trade paperback releases, but cheapness and unreasonably high standards have taken hold over the years as well. So in short, I guess I'm perplexed too, for different reasons.

I woudl add the fact that it isolated itself from common folks. Comcis shops ensure that only bunch of nerds buy comics, we need them back to normal stores.


For me, they are appealing because they tell a resonant story, that of Good versus Evil. They have paragons of each duking it out over lofty goals (control or destroy the world, save the world, etc). They are clear in their goals and intent, even if it's "unrealistic" for them to be so "transparent". Some of this links back to the mythic hero thing, but for me some of it is an appreciation of being able to get away from the frustrating demands of relativism in the world, where everything and nothing is right and wrong, often in the same breath.

Sadly, too many times comics have took a side in the matters of real life world with that approach. As result we got things like Maximum Carnage, where superheroes all talk how it's wrong to kill supervillains and it makes them as bad as those guys, while letting innocent people to die at the hand of villain they couldn't stop aside from killing him.


As far as I'm concerned, super-gritty and "realistic" (because there's not any people in the world as honest and upright and good as Superman, amiright?)

Well, there aren't, that's sorta the point - he is supposed to be what people aspire to be, the ideal, if people like him existed it would mean he wouldn't be so popular.


If people love the Plutonian stories (what I've seen on various places, I don't like much at all), that's fine, but don't turn Superman into the Plutonian.

Must...fight....the urge...too...spoil....the end of Irredeemable......


At the end of Irredeemable Plutonian dies and his essence is scattered across the multiverse so it may shape human ideas and let him be reborn as better person.

Then the comics cuts to alternate Universe, with Shiegiel and Shuster coming up with the idea of Superman.



The Authority isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy it, fine, but don't shove it into the DC mainstream and steal J'onn/Martian Manhunter away to be in that series.

I personally want to look at it from opposite angle - don't shove comics that doesn't fit DCU into DCU. It makes no sense for Guys from Authority to exist alongside JLA and not been attacked by them immiediately. Generally I think comics verses shoudl be smaller. It makes no sense for X-men and Punisher to exist alongside Avengers, it makes no sense for Batman, Captain Marvel, John Constantine and Stormwatch to exist in the same Universe.


Basically, I think comics are at their best when they're trying to present stories of hope and good guys fighting against bad guys and such. When the waters get muddied and they try to make everyone "gritty", it never ever ever works.


I should have clarified that as "it never works with characters previously established as less gritty".

Animal Man, both Morrisson's run and Reboot.
Swamp Thing
Original Suicide Squad
Daredevil
Warren Ellis' Thunderbolts
Marvel version of Ares, God of War
Ghost Rider
Flash Thomphson as Venom
Kyle & Yost's X-Force and Rick Remmender's Uncanny X-Force
The Punisher
Whedon's X-Men
Greg Pak's Hulk
Warren Ellis' Iron Man
DnA's comics marvel, especially Nova.

And if you tell me some of those thigns aren't gritty, you haven't read them.


Speaking of which I think there's a way to demonstrate everything good in comics (with a tolerable amount of silly) and everything bad in comics. Namely All Star Superman and All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder, two similarly named and conceptualized books that could not be more different. Hell they even counter point the good and the bad in publishing, one being started after the other and finishing before in reasonably good order the other one of the horrible titles only published seemingly at random.

Sorry, every case of comparing good exampl from end of the spectrum you support and bad example from the other one is not a real argument. Get All Star Superman against good dark and gritty comics, then we can talk about fair comparision. Meanwhile I will put All-Star batman and Robin against somee bad Silver age stories and we'll see who fares better.


Gwen Stacy shoves women into the fridge.

No, writers shove women into the fridge. By that logic you should hate Watchmen for starting Dark Age.


DKR is actually kind of borderline, looking back. It had some good elements, but the bad parts of Miller's tendencies were starting to leak through (I point you to Catwoman's fate). And it's one of the things acknowledged as kicking of at least part of the Iron Age, which...yeah. Comics are better for trying to leave the Iron Age behind.

Iron Age gave us Sandman, Hellblazer, Supreme, Killing Joke and a lot of other good comics. Just because Rob Liefeld was getting all the attention doesn't mean the entire decade was worthless.


Heck we can go further, allowing cast members to die in comics allows heroes to die too. Thus giving rise to the annoying C-lister brought out of obscurity to be a Red Shirt. Does anybody remember Goliath and Clor with as meaningful story events... anyone?


Again, you blame the comics for what is bad writing of people that followed. And those same things may be turned to good, they are tools like everything else, I can name at least one case of Z-Lister death that made me cry despite never hearing about the guy.


Oh? I can see some similar themes, but in general I would say American Gods is much closer to Brief Lives. Season of Mists has a bunch of fairly imperious gods, while Brief Lives has a much more American Gods presentation of gods as clinging on and surviving in the margins. And just on a superficial level, Brief Lives and American Gods are both about driving around America and talking to forgotten gods.

A lot of Gaimain's works, if not all, may exist in the same Universe and Multiverse, especially that Endless to appear in American Gods, anyway.

[JCarter426]

Pulp genre is one of fundaments of superhero genre and Batman was one who introduced that part to the genre. But he still is a superhero.
As I said there is some overlap, but I still think there's a strong difference, enough at least to make The Dark Knight a bad example. I remember a lot of critics praising The Dark Knight because it wasn't like a superhero film, for example. And that was true, if condescending.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. There is a strong executive control in Marvel and DC, editors tells writers what to do all the time, especially in big name titles. Many crappy stories are result of that - Cry For Justice writer James Robbinson was forced to kill Liian Harper by his editor, Spider-Man writer Joe Straczynski was forced to have Spider-Man make a deal with the devil because of Joe Quesada and his hated Superman story, Grounded was a direct result of being told by Dan Didio to write "down to Earth Superman story".
I wasn't referring to the cases that you just listed, obviously. I did mention some cases of executive meddling; of course Marvel and DC are more protective of their big names, perhaps justifiably so. But compare it to WB's eternal Batman ban. Or Kevin Smith's experiences with Superman Lives. Or what they did to Spider-man 3. Even Nolan had Two-Face forced on him in The Dark Knight. Executive meddling is commonplace, yeah - but it's much worse in other media. I'm sure a lot of it's because comics aren't expected to sell as well, as I noted before, so they regulate them more strictly. And there are other publishers that are quite more lenient than DC or Marvel, even ones that deal with big name series. So executive meddling in comics is rather light by comparison.

But trying new things is good and is what comics with big names lacks - Batman, Superman, Avengers, Wolverine - they all have repeating the same stories over and over and over again, hell all current Batman comics do the same type of story at the same time. Writers are afraid of trying new things and that's what killed my love for such characters like Batman or Wolverine.
I agree the main series are plagued with repetition, as I said before. But I also disagree to some extent; Batman, Inc. is a very original idea. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if it was good or not, but it sounds unlike any Batman story that I can think of. And as far as I know it was Grant Morrison's idea, not something pressured on him by DC.

No ,that's just editorial and writers prying on lowest common denominator.
Hey, I didn't say it makes for good stories, I said it was good marketing.

I however look at it and see Batman I can respect, as opposed to Mary Sue he is in comics.
Well I don't agree with you their at all; I don't respect Batman because he's capable of wearing armor and has the money to afford it. I respect Batman because he doesn't need it.

batman doesn't need to take a crap in the moring...he's Batman. This is what killed the character for me, he can do everything, he doesn't need to do anything you don't like, he can beat anybody, he knows everything...all because he is Batman.
Wow, you're completely misinterpreting my statement. I think he doesn't need armor because he's not supposed to get shot at. Because he's not a moron; he knows his limits, and there's no such thing as bulletproof. He doesn't run into the line of fire, he hides in the shadows.

Because he's Batman.

I woudl add the fact that it isolated itself from common folks. Comcis shops ensure that only bunch of nerds buy comics, we need them back to normal stores.
Eh that's not really the case where I am. Newbury Comics started with comics and branched out into music and such. The other media has surpassed the comic sales, but they still sell comics and they don't hide them in a back room behind a curtain. And bookstores here generally have section for trade paperbacks and manga. But there aren't really bookstores here anymore. Stupid Borders killing all the competition and then going out of business.

I personally want to look at it from opposite angle - don't shove comics that doesn't fit DCU into DCU. It makes no sense for Guys from Authority to exist alongside JLA and not been attacked by them immiediately. Generally I think comics verses shoudl be smaller. It makes no sense for X-men and Punisher to exist alongside Avengers, it makes no sense for Batman, Captain Marvel, John Constantine and Stormwatch to exist in the same Universe.
I forgot to mention this before; I agree with this completely. Of course DC and Marvel's whole business model relies on having a huge universe with something that everyone can enjoy, but that doesn't mean everything has to take place on this particular Earth at this very moment. Marvel has the Ultimate Universe to some extent, and DC's multiverse used to handle this problem - placing Superman and Captain Marv-... er, "Shazam" in different universes - but it's been downgraded to a gimmick.