heros in the media

[axraelshelm]

I guess everyone has read and seen a lot of heros in the media and Is it just me or has there been alot of angsty and dark heros in the modern times?
I have no problems with dark heros but I think it has satuated the market.
In roleplay aswell as in movies and books why does
people in general want to play or read about such a person?
Are we becoming a populous of raving fan boys that just love Blade and the Matrix?
Superman was a great hit and Luke skywalker kept his innocence throughout the course of the first trilodgy but both of these characters are not exactly modern.
So i ask again why do so many people like angst?
Back during the 90's roleplayers favoured Vampire over Changling, aswell as liking batman over superman, robin hood over king Auther.
Why the dark?
Can anyone think of an answer?

[SDF]

People are tired of pulp heroes. People want to play someone they can relate to when they role play. Superman is probably the most wishy-washy character ever conceived.

[Spartan_Samuel]

Ha, this reminds me of my group of friends. We practically worship Batman, and think that he can barely defeat Superman. But still, on that same note, we're disgusted by those pure good, near paladin-esque goody-good heroes. Like our hypocritical view of Batman. We hate heroes who grew up scared by this one menial, miniscule event, yet we still love Batman.

[bosssmiley]

Flaws, personal history, the tension between the good they know they should do and the bad things they feel drawn to; these make a character, and - to some extent - a person interesting. Flawed/anti-heroes reflect on these more ambiguous "coulda, shoulda, woulda" aspects of our own experience in a way pulpy or four colour heroes cannot, hence their appeal.

Put another way: we know we'll never be Superman, but Batman is one of us on deeply familiar and resonant levels.

[Piedmon_Sama]

The anti-hero is not a new concept. Characters in epics as ancient as Homer's Illiad acted questionably--actually, they did a lot of things that were downright vile. The Greeks loved a tragic hero who was doomed by his own flaws (Oedipus, for one), and that concept has stayed popular through thousands of years of human history.

John Constantine is in the model of many "trickster" Gods like the Native American Coyote or Africa's Anansi. Wolverine could be likened to many heroes of Norse myth who could become so utterly consumed by rage they would accidentally strike their loved ones as well as foes. Batman recalls characters like the Count of Monte Cristo as a relentless avenger, half-hero half-horror, and figures like Odysseus, who defeated his enemies with guile and often dealt capriciously even with his followers and comrades.

Of course along with the dark or brutal characters, there has been the virtuous hero. The White Knight, a Galahad. The two archetypes have both been popular in different times at different ages, depending on the zeitgeist of whatever society they're in.

And I'd have to say there's really nothing "dark" about Neo except his wardrobe. =p

[axraelshelm]

i love the neo comment. yeah maybe it's just a tread that veiwers or readers are going through.
maybe the knight arch type shall rise again everything comes and goes anyway.

I can understand people want flaws in characters that they can relate to (it explains why marvel has better sales than dc) but does a hero most of the time has to be dark and brooding?
why cant they be the loveable bard an inspriration to those around them?
in books i've read too many dark brooding MAIN characters it's time for something fun!

[Turcano]

I can understand people want flaws in characters that they can relate to (it explains why marvel has better sales than dc) but does a hero most of the time has to be dark and brooding?

It's mainly an overreaction to earlier heroes back in the days of the Comics Code Authority when writers couldn't do anything really gritty. In fact, the grittiness of many comics before the CCA are comparable to those of today (I mean, Batman used to shoot people, for Pete's sake). In any case, people interpret flawless as fake, probably with good reason.

[axraelshelm]

Thats why i love alex ross Superman it made him real for me because with all his powers he can not save everyone all he can do is help whenever he can.
But imagine like Dare devil he can hear the pleas of people all the time everywhere, sometimes when i'm in a cynical mood I realy do think he's doing all the hard work to shut people up because their making too much noise.

[Beleriphon]

There is a very good reason that Superman has consistently been DCs top comic seller since his inception in 1938. People love the guy for a good reason. He shows what people with immense power should act like.

I don't think that people wanted dark heros, but rather complex heros. Batman and Superman during a rather substantial portion of the 50s and 60s the difference between Superman, Batman, Aquaman or Green Lantern was their catch phrase. As the 70s rolled around characters actually began to develope as characters, into the 80s we got a more violent result of that expansion. I feel a similar change was also seen in other form of popular media, whether movies, books or TV. This has of course culminated with a more realistic view of many characters that we have today that really people instead of the caricatures of the 50s and 60s, while at the same time not being possessed of the excess violence and equal parts goofiness of the 80s.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Just to add on:

A knight in shining armor seems fake to many. If you describe someone as having no flaws and be a paragon of all that's just and good, no one believes that. They are more of an idol, someone you should look up to and strive to be.

A vigilante on the other hand is human in nature. And usually has a reason for being what he is now (Batman's parents were killed by Joker. Spiderman's uncle (in the movie at least) was killed by a robber). They take revenge, unlike knights, who protect order.

[GolemsVoice]

I think it's also because having flaws makes you able to survive. Being "Good" in the way of DnD exalted good is so entirely unrealistic and difficult that no one but a real true and abolutely pure heroe could manage this 24/7. Because no matter what you do, there is always a person that has to lose.
So being a hero who knows that he can't be 100% right, and therefore isn't just makes him realistic, as said.

[Amotis]

Capt. Jack Sparrow comes to mind.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I think it's also because having flaws makes you able to survive. Being "Good" in the way of DnD exalted good is so entirely unrealistic and difficult that no one but a real true and abolutely pure heroe could manage this 24/7. Because no matter what you do, there is always a person that has to lose.
So being a hero who knows that he can't be 100% right, and therefore isn't just makes him realistic, as said.

For this very reason heros in movies are often presented with a choice by the bad guy:

"The woman you love or all these people." -Green Goblin.

Also. Superman = exalted good. Jack Sparrow = chaotic good.

[Amotis]

Not in the latest movie. He was pretty CN.

[pestilenceawaits]

I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with absolute good and bad it is easier if there is a gray area. So people who act as if there is always an absolute come across as naive or foolish. But in reality many people who don't like those goody goodies just don't like the fact that they are so sure of themselves when they themselves have doubts about so many things.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with absolute good and bad it is easier if there is a gray area. So people who act as if there is always an absolute come across as naive or foolish. But in reality many people who don't like those goody goodies just don't like the fact that they are so sure of themselves when they themselves have doubts about so many things.

HUH? Actually it's a lot easier if everything is black and white. That's about as easy as it gets, no tough problems, you are always right or wrong good or bad.

The people who cling to the absolutes do so because the reality (a sea of grey) is too scary or difficult for them. But I'll stop before I get myself in trouble as this will quickly move into the banned area of discussion.

[Don Julio Anejo]

HUH? Actually it's a lot easier if everything is black and white. That's about as easy as it gets, no tough problems, you are always right or wrong good or bad.

The people who cling to the absolutes do so because the reality (a sea of grey) is too scary or difficult for them. But I'll stop before I get myself in trouble as this will quickly move into the banned area of discussion.

I don't like black and white just because it excludes something black from being white and vise versa... My entire life is about different shades of grey.

[Joosbawx]

Black and White...absolute good and absolute evil...are fairly easy constructs to understand; however, try living like that, and you quickly find yourself in a fairly unfriendly, Judge Dredd-esque, society where every wrong you commit is equal to any other wrong.

The reason characters that are 'dark'...which is a term I don't agree with in this particular broad useage...is because they're realistic, and not altruistic. They have thoughts and feelings and urges and a life filled with thought with more than a single dimension. So that may have been a bit strong, but seriously, if I wanted to know what was going to happen I'd read '**** & Jane' books, or watch Power Rangers.

For those that do appreciate a bit of angst, or foreboding, or multi-dimensional characters that develop personalities, I highly recommend 'Watchmen'. I will say nothing more about it than it is a very, very interesting graphic novel that anyone calling themselves a fan of the genre should read.

(for the record that says 'Richard-abbreviated-to-nickname & Jane' books...not something dirty...sheesh)

The reason that people like...or, rather, identify...with characters that are flawed are because we, ourselves, are flawed. Or, at least, I am. And when a lot of people's choices are between the lesser of two evils, that makes a more vivid storytelling experience than a series of obvious choices.


Take the most recent Superman movie for instance...the scene where he is 'standing' in space, looking down and listening to the trouble the world was finding itself in. He opens his eyes suddenly, and the perfect being, the Man of Steel, Superman...what does he do? He flies to save the day...rescuing people from burning buildings, kittens from trees, and (of course) Lois Lane from whatever inane perdicament she's gotten herself into. Don't...I don't know...stop a war, or do something for the good greater than the little old lady crossing the street.


Regardless of the above, I did appreciat the moral delimas that Superman faced during this movie...like when he suspects that Jason (Lois' son) might be his. Interesting. Complex. Shades of Grey.