Saturday Audience Participation
Today's two-part question:
A) Who do you prefer: Superman or Batman? Answer in regards to which character, story, and corresponding themes you like better. (And please consider the growling Dark Knight/Christian Bale version, not the campy Adam West version.)
B) I have a feeling that most regular readers can guess how I would answer the above question. And I very much do have a decided preference. So which story and character do you think I like better?
[In asking this question, I'm primarily concerned with the background stories, the characters, and the respective themes rather than the quality of recent movies or TV shows based on Superman or Batman. While comic books, which I ironically hate despite enjoying superhero movies and TV shows, have been marketed towards kids as escapism, all of them have a distinct allegorical foundation. And Superman and Batman are two of the most meaningful superhero stories in this regard, as opposed to the simple nerd fights back theme of Spiderman. I'd go into what various ideas and themes are present in the stories of Batman and Superman, but I want to leave that for discussion. Plus, it may spoil the answer to (B) above.]
77 comments:
What about Michael Keaton or Val Kilmer?
As for Superman? The first movie was nice, but I disliked the sequels. I have no exposure to the cartoons or comics.
I like Superman better. Superman is a clean, all-American hero. He seldom has to struggle with "moral dilemmas" -- he knows what is right and does it.
(And on the rare occasions when Superman does face a "moral dilemma," it's not an introverted, metaphysical dilemma - it's something like this: a 747 filled with disabled people is about to crash into the Atlantic Ocean, while a school bus full of kids has lost its breaks and is about to plunge off the side of the Pacific Coast Highway into the Pacific Ocean. Which one should Superman save first?)
The Batman moves that came out in the 1990's and 2000's were fun movies. Great special effects. Very entertaining. And it was kind of interesting to see an R-rated superhero who struggled with anger and angst.
But in the end, those movies were sick perversions of the superhero concept. I hate them, and damn the Baby Boomers to hell for taking something clean and decent and making it dark. Because that was the REAL purpose of those movies -- to take the superheros down a notch by making them all too human.
The Adam West batman was basically Superman in a goofier costume -- an honest, clean-cut person who always did his best to make the world a better place. He slept soundly every night, because he lived a decent life and was rightly proud of the contributions he made to society. The Dark Knight batman was a sadistic misanthrope with psychological "issues." He became a superhero to act out his own rage, not to make the world a better place. In short, it was all about HIM.
Superman and the Adam West Batman are icons of what we should all aspire to be. The Dark Knight Batman is just a sick fuckup in a cool costume.
That said, I suspect that OneSTDV likes the Dark Knight batman better, due to the political themes. The Dark Knight's politics are definitely more interesting and applicable to our world. I love vigilante movies, too, and the Punisher is one of my favorite superheros. I just wish they wouldn't have humanized Batman in the 1990's so that he could become a vigilante. Now that they have made him an angry guy, making him a vigilante is probably the most constructive thing that he can do.
I understand Batman as the last of very old-line Protestant elite, the closest thing the northern US had to feudal lords. Gotham is his city, and as a boy Bruce would have been intended to follow in his father's footsteps as the principal civic force in the city.
But his family and then his city are destroyed. (We know what really destroys Bruce's family and Gotham, but flamboyant white supervillans are more appealing antagonists.)
His role becomes obsolete. He's just a rich guy who has to take his place in line with anyone else who has money.
The only way Bruce can fulfill his duties of his lineage is to reject modernity and ignore politicians and bureaucrats who wield power without authority.
Before all those things were, there was the fief and the lord in armor, empowered to bear arms and mete out justice.
Batman used his will and money to dedicate himself to trying to bring order to the chaos around him. He is a human who was hurt but did something about it. He turned a trauamtic childhood event into a defining moment to give his life meaning. He has to hide his face because he knows the evil out there that would hunt him down, and he knows his methods may not jive with the powers that be in society. I also love that he uses both his brawn and his brains to overcome his enemies.
Superman is an alien. Superman has every advantage over his enemies and does things with an idealistic viewpoint from a childhood on a safe Kansas farm. He rarely faces anyone who physically puts his life in danger, and he leaves his face exposed for all to see and glorify.
I am a Batman fan. The Frank Miller Batman, the Batman of the 90s storylines and the Nolan films.
The problem with Superman is he doesn't exist. While Batman is extremely unlikely to ever exist, at least he doesn't defy scientific laws. He has to deal with the same limitations as the rest of us.
I could never understand how Superman could have sex.Wouldn't his penile contractions at the moment of orgasm be powered by super muscles amd wouldnt his sperm shoot out with such force that poor Lois would be decapitated?? Nomesayne?
The League of Shadows.
Superman or Batman? I prefer Politenessman.
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/alberto1138/50360557/
Batman. I love film noir and there's something more noirish about Batman than Superman. If Batman isn't done in that style, I don't prefer him over Superman. I hated the campy pop art style Batman tv show when I was a kid in the sixties.
@Joe Schmoe
"Superman is a clean, all-American hero. He seldom has to struggle with "moral dilemmas" -- he knows what is right and does it."
I completely disagree.
Superman is a failed ubermensch. He arrives here with an invulnerable body and a strong consciencous nature, and what does he do with it? Does he attack Evil in all its forms? Not at all. He subsumes himself in the blue pill morality of the era; he becomes a direct agent of the government, in a way that Dr Manhattan found disgusting. His employment as a newspaper reporter is bang-on to this mentality. He writes articles that lie and distort, while holding the moral pretense of being a crusader of truth.
Superman enforces the lies and status quo of the elite. He lacks the courage to confront moral bugbears. He does what he does for a pat on the head.
Batman is the social anarchist; he sees the evil that's present in the leftward decline, and fights against it. He doesn't use knockout gas to gently trap criminal scum, and hand them over to a broken and corrupt justice department - he finds those who are truly evil, and breaks their limbs.
His moral crusade may derive from a deathwish, and he might not make a good friend or lover, but regardless of what sort of person you consider him to be, he channels his neuroses into righteousness. He puts his own frail body on the line, not for a pat on the head, not for social approval, but for what is right.
He's not afraid of challenging the status quo, if the status quo is evil.
His essence is captured in the line from Fight Club: "It's when you've lost everything that you're free to do anything."
The easy path was handed to him, but he denied it - he doesn't use his wealth to run charities, or other feel-good do-nothing nonsense, he uses his wealth to augment the force of his personality.
Batman is the social anarchist; he sees the evil that's present in the leftward decline, and fights against it. He doesn't use knockout gas to gently trap criminal scum, and hand them over to a broken and corrupt justice department - he finds those who are truly evil, and breaks their limbs.
The Nolan movies have been completely misinterpreted in this regard. Batman may initially paint himself as an anti-corruption vigilante, but at the end of the Dark Knight he completely turns course. He sacrifices himself for propping up the myth of Harvey Dent - the ultimate status quo, establishment alpha. He argues that a legitimate symbol of good is far more powerful than a mythic in-the-shadows idea.
And to say he's only a vigilante is also specious - he works very closely with the police chief. Recall the Bat signal?
As for Superman, you're going too much into the comics and considering irrelevant details regarding the Superman story. The popular cultural myth of Superman (which is what I'm asking about in this post) has nothing to do with what he does in the comics, which I admittedly know little about besides some 1940's war support.
When people think Superman they think:
Superman is a clean, all-American hero. He seldom has to struggle with "moral dilemmas" -- he knows what is right and does it.
His adversaries are obviously evil like Lex Luther and Doomsday. And he mostly just saves people (read Joe Schmoe's comment) from catastrophe, like the amazing (and only good) scene of 2006's Superman Returns when he saves that 747. When people think Superman, they think small-town farmboy from Kansas who goes to the big-city to save people from falling off buildings and robbers.
I prefer Batman. Bruce Wayne is the alter ego and Batman is the guy's true identity. It's analogous to how we hide our true nature behind a facade. Do we express ourselves in public? No we understand the backlash and leftist inquisitions can destroy any man. Much like Bruce Wayne is just a man. What they can't destroy is an ideal much like Batman.
The Batman universe (pretty much unlike any other) has by far the best villains. They're just as intriguing as Batman himself. Perhaps even more so like the Joker in The Dark Knight.
Batman has had so many great interpretations over the years from comics, cinema, animation, and recently gaming. Superman doesn't even come close. My favorite incarnation was Batman The Animated Series. It had a little bit of everything for everyone.
They are both great. Those who deride one or the other fail to recognize the genius of both characters.
Batman is about taking revenge ... within moral limits. Punishing the wicked (by scaring them and beating them up) without himself becoming a monster. Yes that's ground tread by the Count of Monte Christo, and Zorro, but it is VERY well done. Batman is the human being pushed to extra-ordinary limits. He can be on occasion out-muscled by super-freaks, but never out-thought. As one evil character notes, "the Detective Lives for Revenge." But he himself sets rules that makes it more not less difficult for him: no killing.
Superman came first, and was originally a Lex Luthor like Villain. He is the wish-fulfillment of every sick little kid, powerful but not a monster, a force for good. Anyone watching helpless as a major disaster strikes, understands the need for a "good Demi-God" to save people. He is about, the power of American decency to shape power for good. His character is a living Flag, and the embodiment of what America is supposed to be.
He is the most powerful being on the planet, who chooses to live as an ordinary American, and loves an ordinary American woman, flaws and all.
They are both great, and a common trick is to have both show up in each other's comics to help out. Superman is not stupid, for all his might, and Batman is invulnerable to Kryptonite. Their friendship, and mutual trust, across VERY different characters, is the foundation of the DC Universe. Miller was an interesting experiment, a one-off, but that was NEVER Superman. No one knew who he was but Batman and a few others. He was not the Government, but what a ten year old boy wished he could be.
How about neither one of the two
I prefer Dexter Morgan myself.
He has the mild-mannered-ness of Clark Kent on the outside, but when push comes to shove, he goes the extra mile, killing the monsters that he encounters, unlike that wimp Batman.
I've never really gotten into either Superman or Batman. Thinking about why I suppose it's because I've never identified with any super heroes, the need for a messiah to save us.
This could be an Ozzie thing I don't know. There is also, as always with most things American, a carnal subtext. Superman with whatever his journo girls name is and Batman in his alter ego as a playboy. (I mean that as an observation not a knock. It's something that Graham Greene noted, the core 'carnal chivalry' that seems to motivate American acts of heroism.)
The Adam West Batman was big here as a kid and was a lot of fun. That Batman I identified with in some ways.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is popular here and thinking about that I might attribute it to the collective mindset of Ozzies. Obviously TMNT is big in the USA as well, but it has more appeal here it seems to me than Batman or Superman. Mate of mine at school was infatuated with Superman, something I never understood. He went on to become a police man.
As a boy the Japanese "Monkey" series was something I very much identified with. That series explored human character failings and virtues. There was always a physical fight which was correlated with an internal spiritual struggle.
Just asked one of my boys about this subject.
Q. Have you ever watched Batman?
A. Yes
Q. Do you like it?
A. Yes
Q. What do you prefer, Batman or TMNT?
A. TMNT
Q. Why?
A. Because Batman is alone. The Turtles always fight and they are brothers.
He also then told me about Horrible Histories (a British kids tv show that does entertaining and comical skits that teach British history) and one episode he liked about some Knights who were brothers and how they climbed up a toilet "chute" to get the enemy in the castle.
This corresponds with my own assessment that the communal/brotherhood/gang aspect of TMNT is far more appealing here than the lone super hero concept.
Reading above comments like "Batman as the last of very old-line Protestant elite" tends to confirm my theory. Maybe lone super heroes correspond with individualist type cultures and gang based super heroes correspond with with communal based cultures.
Superman and Batman are more Protestant manifestations and TMNT something that appeals to a Catholic type mindset for instance.
"I've never identified with any super heroes, the need for a messiah to save us."
You don't give up, do you?
Heh heh, just read Whiskey's ode to Superman and Batman which again adds to my theory.
Especially note the moral absolutism and call to identify an evil inner that needs be cast out: "Those who deride one or the other fail to recognize the genius of both characters."
Also note the appeal for a messianic "Demi-God" who will justify the righteous and take revenge on the wicked.
You don't give up, do you?.
Seriously Lara, I am not attempting to undermine or anything like that. Was just enjoying my morning's coffee in some peaceful solitude for a change.
Read the post and then wrote my thoughts on it. That's all.
But I can see how my comments might be taken as stirring or something. In this instance they aren't. Maybe I should just shut up :-)
I am not a big movie watcher, but Whiskey says very well what my casual observations are.
"communal based cultures"
Which are also more feminine. Men are loners, women are not.
Pat: There's a "gang"-based comic series that's been quite popular in the US - the X-Men. I understand that that series is associated with various liberal notions, however.
I wonder what Whiskey thinks about the X-Men.
Also:
Powdered Toast Maaaaaaan!
"communal based cultures"
Which are also more feminine. Men are loners, women are not.
Yeah, maybe, I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree. The Knights of the Round Table for instance is a form of collective action, though each Knight brings his own people and personal attributes to the table.
Certainly early European Christianity was more masculine than today and it was collectivist. For example the monastery system. Collectivist but also with a hierarchy that sought to serve the common interest.
Anglo-Saxon hierarchy was collectivist, of sorts, which is why democracy came from the Anglo-Saxons. It was and is an expression of their collective action. The chief only ruled so long as the warriors supported the chief.
I would see the notion of collectivism or communalism as feminine being an American expression (not a knock, just my observation). Just as the Alpha-Beta-Omega obsession is American. Yanks seem very stratified and conscious of social status.
If you consider cricket, being very much the English game, it is played by individuals, reliant on individuals but they must coalesce as a team. I'd consider that the failure of Indian cricket is that they are individualist to an extreme, very princely and set apart. No matter how good each individual is they seem unable to coalesce a group or team effort.
IHTG, yes I've heard of the X-Men but don't know much about them.
What about Ben 10? He seems pretty popular and has his female cousin I think and a mate who all work together.
Of the modern cartoons I must say, hesitantly, they I very much like the Powerpuff Girls. Especially Mojo Jojo, that monkey cracks me up. Which reminds me, I most always idenitfy with the villain. I liked Lex Luthor for instance whenever seeing Superman and would hope his ingenuity would kick that moral flake Superman's arse.
Lex relied on ingenuity and intelligence whereas Superman was an alien nancy boy who relied on the fact that he was born with alien super powers. But Lex worked out his weakness and used it against Superman.
Lex had goals as well which he set about in plans and worked towards realising those goals. He also had a team of henchmen which needed to be co-ordinated. That's not easy, bringing the team together.
"I would see the notion of collectivism or communalism as feminine being an American expression"
I'm an American and I was always told the most important thing is being a team player.
Not to hijack the thread or anything but I suppose I would identify more with Batman. He had that utility belt with fantastic gadgets for all occasions.
Batman didn't have super powers but relied on his intelligence and building his own strength and fighting abilities.
If he had a gang with him as well and they all hung out at the bat cave then I'd be more on board.
The Thunderbirds were more my cup of tea. Smart lads who worked together though each on their different rockets. All from that great island co-ordinating international rescues. Yeah, Virgil and Alan were very cool.
I'm an American and I was always told the most important thing is being a team player.
Yes, but your concept of team is far more individualist than the rest of the Anglo-sphere. Take Gridiron for instance. The reliance on one player, the super hero quarterback, is not something that translates well to other Anglo based nations.
Also all the trash talking over the top celebrating at touchdowns. That is disgraceful behaviour the way they dance about. It's starting to infect our games now, mostly the Islanders and Aboriginals, who emulate that behaviour. It goes against the team concept.
Pat,
If American culture seems splintered and overly individualistic to you it could be the diversity. I'm an Anglo Saxon American and I was always taught to sacrifice for the good of the team. I've always preferred team sports to individual ones. It isn't our value system that's the problem.
"Also all the trash talking over the top celebrating at touchdowns."
That's black players. We can't tell them what to do anymore.
Fair enough Lara. I don't mean to criticise American culture just observations.
If it makes things a bit better and even, then I would say that I regard Oz culture as one of the most stupid on earth. Post 1970s definitely.
I can't think of anything we have produced similar to Batman or Superman. Most of our TV shows are about families living in a neighbourhood like "Neighbours" or "Homa and Away." Our superheroes, if they can be called that, are people like Breaker Morant or Ned Kelly and obviously the Gallipoli/Diggers type stuff.
Today we make pure and unadulterated crap like Priscella Queen of the Desert.
Bit out of my element here (though I could opine on the Cineaste renditions and manifestations of these characters.)
But among what i've heard so far, these are what nail it for me:
"They are both great."
He can be on occasion out-muscled by super-freaks, but never out-thought (Batman)
He is the most powerful being on the planet, who chooses to live as an ordinary American, and loves an ordinary American woman, flaws and all. (Superman)
Reading above comments like "Batman as the last of very old-line Protestant elite" tends to confirm my theory. Maybe lone super heroes correspond with individualist type cultures and gang based super heroes correspond with with communal based cultures.
I'm somewhat humbled to acknowledge that I'm largely won over or already agree with Whiskey's observations on this topic. (lol!)
I'm somewhat humbled to acknowledge that I'm largely won over or already agree with Whiskey's observations on this topic. (lol!)
I don't know why. As Lara points out to me, and also something I've heard on other American blogs, a lot of this sort of thing is not actually reflective of the foundation American people.
Batman and Superman may actually be Jewish creations for all I know. When regarding American movies I always remind myself that this is not necessarily reflecting foundation Americans. And that certainly corresponds with my experience years ago travelling the USA.
The Hollywood America of brash super heroes did not correlate with Anglo-Saxon type Americans I met.
I wonder how much the individualist nature of the media is a perversion of core WASP individualism. I don't know.
Certainly if you see Ozzie TV/movies that is reflective of Ozzies (probably leftist elites) and is not funded by Jewish organisations.
Not picking on anyone here, just wondering aloud at the various ethnic based cultures as manifested by TV and movies.
David Lynch's Agent Cooper and the like in other movies I see as very much a WASP style foundational American. That character and others like stand in stark contrast to mainstream depictions.
"David Lynch's Agent Cooper and the like in other movies I see as very much a WASP style foundational American. That character and others like stand in stark contrast to mainstream depictions."
That is for sure; Twin Peaks came out of the blue; nothing like it before or since (save lynch's films).
The Twin Peaks two-hr. pilot was one of the most innovative pieces of television ever produced.
Has anyone read the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns"? Would you recommend it? I would have never considered reading a graphic novel, but a friend convinced me to check out "Watchmen" and I have to say it was excellent.
I would have never considered reading a graphic novel
I can't imagine ever reading a graphic novel. Aren't they sort of a nerd version of movies (or movies are de-nerdified versions of graphic novels)?
"I would have never considered reading a graphic novel"
I don't see why not; I don't think the format or genre (if it's even developed into one at this early date) has any particular stigmata attached to it. True, it somewhat easily connotes humor or fantasy stories because it's the format of comic-books.
But really any type of commercial or creative communcation art that blends text with visuals, or html links unveiling film/photos/drawings or even more text is deploying 'graphic-novel' technique.
I think it's a mode of budding potential; particularly for writers who, perhaps nervous about seeing traditional formats drying up, have a mode at their use that doesn't ignore their specific talent yet is current and en vogue in terms of style and marketing techniques.
Product in stores and specifically denoted to be 'Graphic Novels' exist and are a small part of the literary market but are really a different, more specific thing.
Yes, I stand by my statement that the original characters being derided is like deriding say, Sherlock Holmes. Holmes, Batman, and Superman are the most successful fictional character creations, done by guys looking to entertain, not moralize, and recognized around the world. Little kids around the Third World like and trust Superman, so the UN teamed with DC Comics to produce an anti-Mine comic book to be distributed around the world to warn of the dangers of unexploded mines, and what to do.
That hinged on the original genius of a couple of High School Kids in "Old America" in Chicagoland. A guy not much older (Bob Kane) helped create Batman, also known and loved.
[And no, the original was not campy, but revenge driven, Batman originally shot and killed criminals, though that was dropped rapidly.]
Nor are Graphic Novels "junk" always. They are not always superheroes, either. Neil Gaiman's stuff like Dream of the Endless draws upon myths and legends of a number of cultures. Just because it combines beautiful art with text, does not make it non-serious or bad. Twilight has no illustrations to accompany its text, and it is crap. Sandman Mystery Theater has both and is not crap.
And I'd defend comics too. At their best (they can be terribly cliched, slipshod, rushed, hack jobs, and pathetic) they embody like TV, the one critical aspect denied everything including the novel: TIME, and feedback. A comic can theoretically, if it holds the readership, take as long as it likes to tell a story. In staggering complexity (most of course do not). It also has the ability to feed-back into the audience what is popular, and eliminate that which is not.
Yes Comics are a mostly creative ghetto, serving as nothing more than licensing farms for toys and bad action movies. But they were not always so, and could be again. At their very best, they are among the most male, most "sense of wonder and excitement" forms of entertainment around, showing you things from some staggeringly talented artists and writers (see: Kurt Busiek, Astro City) in entirely new ways of thinking and seeing.
"Superman and Batman are more Protestant manifestations"
It's certainly true that Superman (especially) and Batman ooze of Protestantism.
Though I don't dislike Superman, one of the aspects about him that has always kept me from enjoying him is his Americanism (which I realize might anger some readers of this blog). By that I mean the hammy morality which may work well in comic form as an archetype, but falls far short of inspiring in the long run because it's so disconnected from reality.
I genuinely enjoy Batman BECAUSE of how he grapples with morality and because his nemesis, the Joker, is the most interesting villain in comic book history, in my opinion. His only conviction is that life is a joke. Very interesting!
But the reasoning for my opinion about Superman in particular translates to other forms of media like Westerns. Now, I like John Wayne. He was a classy guy. I get why people adore him. He made a decent film or two or more even. But his roles were always hammy as hell. I get why people roll their eyes thinking about his acting, particularly non-Americans (as American righteousness is pretty insufferable at times). However, you put in a Spaghetti Western and give me a dose of Clint Eastwood (The Man With No Name) and the hairs on my neck will stand up straight. He's not a moralizer like Wayne's characters. He's a warrior with an honor code that respects masculinity and strength and possesses those qualities in spades himself. No fancy "pilgrim" blathering is needed. It has shades of the Japanese samurai modus operandi. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the Dollars Trilogy (which I adore), which was made outside of the U.S., has none of the Protestant "good people" moralizing.
So yeah, Superman and Batman (to a lesser extent) are John Wayne. Lovable but cheesy (even the 'Dark' Batman can be cheesy) and ultimately not nearly as inspiring as someone like Rorschach from the Watchmen (which is the best American comic ever made, in my opinion). Conan The Barbarian (from Howard's stories) is more like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name and I think there is a reason young men are drawn to power and violence and even more so when the sermons that often come with it are excised.
And if anyone is interested, here is one of my favorite speakers giving a lecture on comic books; the whole lecture basically expands on my points about Superman and Batman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGqUhkXGpJA
Also, for any fans of Japanese manga, I highly recommend Berserk which is a Japanese take on European fantasy. The main character, Guts (who looks like a cross between Mel Gibson and Rutger Hauer), should really resonate with a lot of young men.
By that I mean the hammy morality which may work well in comic form as an archetype, but falls far short of inspiring in the long run because it's so disconnected from reality.
You're watching a show or movie about guys wearing tights and capes while beating up bad guys - and you're complaining about realism.
Superhero culture is the epitome of escapism. It's supposed to be idealistic and fantastical. If I want reality I step outside my door, not put in a movie about a guy with a secret identity and a batcave or Fortress of Solitude.
I think OneSTDV affinity is for Superman based on the theme that Superman is the nationalistic embodiment of US Spirit in the 1950's optimistic and earnest sense.
Aurini's depiction of Superman bothers me. The questions OneSTDV is not about a particular interpretation. But the recurring theme over all of them. For Superman, it's his optimistism and earnestness as well as his superpowers and being all for that truth, justice, and the American way. If the government is being "American" he wouldn't be on there side either.
The one I'm most familiar is the interpretation of Superman cartoons of the 1990's and early 2000's. The cartoons that the writers have followed the decision to be darker and edgier (along with other DC cartoons, actually first spearheaded with Batman - I think it influenced the darker Batman we see in the recent movies). Despite the more mature tone, he still's the boy scout with old fashioned everything. What is not seen in the cartoons is some kind of enforcement of the status quo as you claimed. He doesn't protect the elites in some kind of warped view of morality and be a direct arm of the government. He is actually quite feared by the government as one of the later storylines is the government efforts to try to "counterbalance" Superman.
Batman is remembered by the two main interpretations of Adam West and the recent interpretation of him. Yet, he retains his sense of justice. But despite the similar basic themes, what keep them separate even in the Adam West version, is Superman is open - Batman is closed (or in the shadows or etc).
The newer interpretations ran with the close-ness of Batman as it fits the modern style of cynicism.
Taking from OneSTDV previous posts about the American Character (and the Left slow killing of it), I think he is a Superman guy.
I only saw the first Bale Batman, and I found the editing of the fights to be so ridiculous that I haven't watched any since.
However, I have always preferred Batman over all other superheroes, and I have no interest at all in Superman.
Superman is a god. The only thing that can challenge a god is other gods or some contrivance that prevents the god from using his god powers. In any case, once you start dealing with gods, the background and atmosphere of the setting becomes irrelevant. They are gods, they can snap their fingers and destroy or create at will or nearly at will. The environment they find themselves in, ultimately, is meaningless. For this reason I do not care much for stories about gods fighting. I also could care even less for stories where gods have to wrangle with moral baloney.
Batman had cool gear that he could use, or I could use, to fight crime.
My favorite character in the Goonies was the Asian kid because he had gadgets too.
If you ever get the chance, I highly recommend taking a look at these graphic novel style compilations of Batman's earliest comics. They are great.
I stopped reading comics regularly more than a decade ago. The only thing I have read since is Mike Mignola stuff and a Japanese comic called Pluto, which was great.
The rest of the stuff I've peeked at is so preachy and horrible. Not all or even most, but an embarrassing percentage of the art in comics is shamelessly traced from photographs. I cannot believe it.
Comic fans and writers are far too pleased with their own righteousness for me so I don't read them.
"You're watching a show or movie about guys wearing tights and capes while beating up bad guys - and you're complaining about realism."
You see, I've never liked this criticism. It's hardly valid as you're not really addressing my point so much as dismissing my point because you're hung up on aesthetics. You might as well say that Greek mythology only has merits of escapism (and thus no literary qualities about human character that can be examined on a deeper level) because it has gods interfering with human events.
Of course, superheroes dress over the top. But let's not use a superficial aesthetic to distract from any substance that may lurk further within the archetypes past the ink on the page, which is what I was trying to get at here. Hell, you blogged about it in the first place. Would you have preferred it if I just said, "I like Superman because I like capes and red and it's all escapism"?
Is it not much more intriguing when the psychology of the characters within the story actually reflects something about human experience? The costumes and "escapist" elements are just a creative palate to illuminate ontological truths, the way I see it. At least, that's how I distinguish good writing from frivolous writing.
You may think it's all child's play, but there is a reason people are drawn to certain stories in a primordial way and not others. And it is not always JUST because they prefer capes to cowls. The archetypes go deeper than that.
Just to take another example-- look at the horror film genre. The Shining (with shades of Edgar Allan Poe) has great literary merit while Freddy and Jason are campy and silly. They're both wildly over the top and fun in their own way. The fact that one has to suspend their belief and pretend that something like the shining exists is irrelevant to the qualities contained within it. In much the same way, I look for certain qualities in my escapism in order to evaluate it as do many people. That is, again, why The Watchmen is regarded as such a genius work even though guys are running around in tights just as Homer's poems are brilliant despite the fact that Thucydides ridiculed it for it's fantastical and unrealistic (in an aesthetic sense) nature.
"Superhero culture is the epitome of escapism."
Aesthetically, yes. Psychologically, not at all and that's what makes them interesting and sustaining.
"It's supposed to be idealistic and fantastical."
Conan The Barbarian has those elements. Yet, he doesn't come off as a preacher man like Superman or Batman. Hey, I'm not the only one that sees the dripping Protestantism in American comics.
Even in Japanese manga, the moralizing ("good" vs. "evil") is often less obvious and the lines are blurred.
"If I want reality I step outside my door, not put in a movie about a guy with a secret identity and a batcave or Fortress of Solitude."
I really think you've missed my point completely. Again, I mean reality in terms of human motivation and psychology, not necessarily reality in terms of superpowers or what have you.
Yes, I stand by my statement that the original characters being derided is like deriding say, Sherlock Holmes.
You've lost me. There is no correlation between Superman/Batman and Sherlock Holmes. I haven't seen the movies only read the short stories so perhaps I'm missing your point.
Holmes and Watson lived together (on and off) in an apartment on Baker Street attended to by Mrs Hudson. They read the paper, discussed topics, smoked and had general chit chat. Nothing super hero about either at all. Holmes was a brilliant boxer and master at disguise. I remember one where he played an opium addict for a while at a den to get to his targets.
They are more Batman and Robin if anything, though it's a long stretch.
Re Thunderbirds, Mr Tracy is very impressive. He amassed a fortune yet dedicated it to the service of "humankind" by building his island and the various high tech rockets etc on it. He also maintained an international spy ops like team in Lady Penelope and her manservant Parker.
He had to maintain all the team, protecting Brains who was quite a nerd but vital to International Rescue's success.
One notable thing about all of them, even that Asian hotty Tin Tin, is the lack of vanity. They had to remain humble and secrecy was very important not to blow their cover.
Superman strikes me as self serving and vain - even though he had mild mannered Clark Kent he knew he would be big swinging alien dick Superman when he wanted. And he did revel in his carnal directive with that journo (can't remember her name).
Maybe there is some Germanic in International Rescue. High tech, capable, efficient yet always humble and serving a greater good.
Anonymous says,
"You see, I've never liked this criticism. It's hardly valid as you're not really addressing my point so much as dismissing my point because you're hung up on aesthetics .....I really think you've missed my point completely. Again, I mean reality in terms of human motivation and psychology, not necessarily reality in terms of superpowers or what have you."
Yes, I think anonymous is correct here. Yet One didn't so much as miss the point as be falsely dismissive of it, IMHO; it's perfectly valid to critique inconsistent moral or literary thematics within a fantastical or in other ways unrealistic dramatic frame.
One clearly knows as much and has said or made points incorporating as much in countless earlier posts.
Go back to your mutual corners and try again, fellows! Not too much to really argue about in this particular instance (lol!).
"Yes, I think anonymous is correct here. Yet One didn't so much as miss the point as be falsely dismissive of it,"
Thank you, nikcrit. But I don't understand the distinction you're making there. Isn't dismissing the point (where there is a point) effectively the same as missing the point?
@ Anonymous:
Nice followup. I like what you said - the Greek myth allusion was especially strong.
Maybe I should have said: I don't want my superhero culture offerings to be real. I want the idealism. I want characters who stand above us, not amongst us. [I'm giving away my answer to part (B) huh?]
I think my original idea was that since we already give up so much realism, accepting men from other planets or billionaires who dress up in tights to fight crime, that we should just go all the way. We shouldn't try to maintain some realism just because we can get away with thematically. (Applies only to the superhero element, not the Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne storylines.)
I WIKE SPIDUH-MAAAAAAN!!!
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Pat Hannagan: "Batman and Superman may actually be Jewish creations for all I know."
Of course they are. Batman is the creation of Bob Kane (born Robert Kahn) and Bill Finger, both Jewish. Superman is the creation of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both Jewish.
Jews create stuff, and we goys just lap it up.
I guess we'd be pretty bored if the Jews didn't make up all those songs and stories for us.
What about the very first costumed superhero - the Scarlet Pimpernel?
Of course they are. Batman is the creation of Bob Kane (born Robert Kahn) and Bill Finger, both Jewish. Superman is the creation of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both Jewish.
I'm surprised Pat didn't know this already, since Whiskey is always repeating it. He's going to write off the American comic book culture entirely after reading this, alas.
Never ask a question without knowing the answer is what my dad taught me IHTG.
You may note my opening line: "I've never really gotten into either Superman or Batman."
That being said, I treated the topic openly and dealt with OneSTDV's intent and am genuine in my regard for it.
I love novels, short stories and...graphic novels!
IHTG, I like your web persona and wish you would be more genuine treating White nationalism. I don't deal with Israel like it has some disease so I don't know why Israeli's can't deal deal with us similarly.
"the League of Shadows"--- I agree.
@OneSTDV- You've never read a graphic novel, yet you seem to have endless time for utter shite on youtube. You may not eat crap but you're quite eager to imbibe it mentally, critically or otherwise
Batman and Superman may actually be Jewish creations for all I know. When regarding American movies I always remind myself that this is not necessarily reflecting foundation Americans. And that certainly corresponds with my experience years ago travelling the USA.
Note how Whiskey latched on to the concept of Batman and Superman as being the embodiment of Protestantism.
Greg Cochran once handed Whiskey his own arse over Anglo-Saxons at Sailers, even quoted Tacitus to him.
Looks like Whiskey still hasn't learned the lesson.
"Isn't dismissing the point (where there is a point) effectively the same as missing the point?"
No, I was saying that he saw and understood your intention (critique the thematics w/in a escapist format), but dismissed it because of the escapist format (even though such critiques are common and valid IMO).
That's 'dismissing,' not merely 'missing' ----- though I just now noticed that you covered both in your intital reply to him.
So I guess my unasked-for mediation was a bit unnecessary after all! (lol!)
IHTG, you should read my comment starting "I don't know why." to Nickrit again with our acknowledged knowledge again.
Isn't Nickrit a Black? Yet he too likes Agent Cooper, the archetypal American Protestant. One I admire. Watch Blue Velvet. It's actually a morality tale, with the dissolution of American cores values as its centre piece.
IHTG, I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on He amassed a fortune yet dedicated it to the service of "humankind" by building his island and the various high tech rockets etc on it.
It was a nod to you and your love for "humanity".
It was an homage to you IHTG. To the moon...and mars!
Anonymous,
Superman is written for boys, which may explain the straight forward morality. As an Protestant American adult I would never go see the Superman movie or read the comic. It's for kids.
I do know some adults who went to see the Superman movie, years ago when it came out. It just doesn't appeal to me. I saw the original one when I was a kid.
Anyway, as someone pointed out, Jews created Superman. The fact that he is a wooden character might just be because they don't understand American Protestants well.
Apparently Jews weren't very happy with the way they were portrayed in The Passion. I guess it works both ways.
Superman has tremendous power, and has to make a conscious decision every hour of every day to not abuse it. He could literally make the world whatever he wanted, set himself up as a benevolent ruler, and solve all of humanity's ills. To do so would deny man's free will, and this nobleness and ability to resist temptation make him a hero. He embodies the psyche of the US still seeing itself as the smalltown rural/industrial 1940s powerhouse with good christian values, trying to do the right thing.
Batman is a revenge fantasy, about a rich kid with a silver spoon who uses all his money trying to fill a hole left when mommy and daddy were killed. He is not nearly so noble, and his crusade is more about himself than any external factor. He represents the dark side of the wealthy US, still trying to do what is right, and sometimes necessary, but out of more selfish motivations.
Superman gets up every day and decides to be a hero. Batman gets up every day and does what he is compelled to do.
Anyway, as someone pointed out, Jews created Superman. The fact that he is a wooden character might just be because they don't understand American Protestants well.
I don't think he's a wooden character at all, especially if you consider his dual identity. He's a straightforward hero in a world of rigidly defined good and evil. If that's wooden, then oh well - I like it. Plus, I agree with the below characterization of his background:
He embodies the psyche of the US still seeing itself as the smalltown rural/industrial 1940s powerhouse with good christian values, trying to do the right thing.
Regarding the Jewish issue, it's somewhat surprising that Superman was written by 1930s NYC Jews given how much his upstanding moral character is supposed to be a reflection of his upbringing in rural Smallville Kansas. Only Spiderman seems to have such reverent parental figures pushing him towards heroism.
Oh and I think I've given away the answer but I love the Superman myth.
I like Batman too and watched the cartoon religiously back in the 90s, but Superman is easily my favorite.
[Note that it's been my favorite since I was a kid, so it has little to do with the themes and allegories. I just really like the story and the character.]
***I can't imagine ever reading a graphic novel. Aren't they sort of a nerd version of movies (or movies are de-nerdified versions of graphic novels)?***
@ OneSTDV,
That was my attitude too. I had seen "Watchmen" the movie on a flight and found it quite intriguing. I find that novels are generally better than their movie adaptations, so thought I might as well borrow my friends graphic novel of Watchmen (he also had V for Vendetta - which I didn't enjoy nearly as much).
It felt a bit childish at first reading a comic book and I didn't read it on the train to work. Still, it was seriously good. Here's a review from Time:
"A work of ruthless psychological realism, it’s a landmark in the graphic novel medium. It would be a masterpiece in any."
–TIME, TIME MAGAZINE’s 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present
"@ Anonymous:
Nice followup. I like what you said - the Greek myth allusion was especially strong."
Thank you very kindly.
"Maybe I should have said: I don't want my superhero culture offerings to be real. I want the idealism."
Ah! This word choice of yours is interesting because it points to a kind of larger metaphysical picture. What is that idealism of Superman based upon? I've already told you my opinion but I'll reiterate: a Christian (but especially American Protestant) metaphysical view of existence (even if Jews created him). The good and evil on the comic pages comes from religious convictions imbibed under a specific historical context pertaining to absolute dualism which is why Superman comes across as nostalgic and uniquely American. Americans during the time Superman was created had palpable convictions in such a dualism. America was pure goodness. So was Superman. Now, things are more complicated. That ideal seems too disconnected from reality. You hear talk of "shades of gray" as the zeitgeist that made Superman work has become altered or watered down.
So now that the religion (or at least the form of the religion) which inspired the idealism behind Superman has essentially collapsed, the 1950s formula on the pages of DC doesn't strike a chord with the public the way it used to except in a sense of it being quaint and pointing to "simpler times" which is something you seem to (understandably) long for in a way.
But there is a consequence to believing in something (like a type of distant idealism) that was destined to collapse. When the structure collapses, something new comes in to fill the void within the culture. What we've seen fill that spiritual void in the wake of Superman and Batman (yes, they're still popular but they aren't as dominant) are nihilistic "heroes" given to us by today's Hollywood. They're "heroes" who really aren't heroes at all unless the word "hero" simply means a person that stopped people from getting hurt and nothing else. The people within our culture are themselves nihilistic so they naturally gravitate toward seeing a similar type glorified because that's what resonates and that's what's "real" and "gritty" -- nihilism. Nihilism is what happens when a faith system collapses and people crave for either their faith or lack of faith to be portrayed within their entertainment.
In other words, people can't identify with the Protestant metaphysic of Golden Age DC that gave us "truth, justice, and the American way" Superman or "just doing my duty" Batman anymore so they want something more "real" and what is "real" now is something that is not often heroic in any sense. The craziest extension of this is perhaps Tony Montana or Grand Theft Auto and the glorification of rappers.
But think, for example, of characters like James Bond or Shaft or XXX (Vin Diesel character) or even some of the characters portrayed as cool in a movie like Sin City or Pulp Fiction. They essentially have no character or integrity in the sense that Superman or Batman did. The ends always justify the means. They don't believe in any virtues. They're just good at what they do. Their motivation in many cases is just pussy or lowly spoils and liberal humanist "making sure people don't get hurt" nonsense simply by virtue of the writers making up some contrived "save the world" scenario. They don't really have deep principles at the end of the day, though. In other words, they are nihilistic.
**The Watchmen exposes this idea in a very clever way. That is why some of us are writing so highly about it. No disrespect to the creators, but I have a feeling the creators of that comic don't even fully realize the gravity of the ideas within their own work.
That characters are more "adult" and more "complicated" and less idealistic is not necessarily all a negative, in my opinion, though. I see it as an opportunity to fix our trajectory (which may make sense when my post is finished). What we've seen within our culture is the rise of the "anti-hero." But that term is too much of an umbrella. By that I mean we call all heroes with attitude "anti-heroes" because we instinctively know they are different from polished Batman and Superman types. However, there are different breeds of these so-called "anti-heroes" with attitude who aren't "goodie two shoes" and distinguishing them is important.
I already alluded to heroes that are simply called such by virtue of contrived writing where some otherwise nihilistic soul is put in some situation where he must save the world. And I mentioned that people like this character type today because he has "flaws" and is thus more "real" just like the general public. Again, these "anti-heroes" are nihilistic. They have no conviction or beliefs.
Now, consider a character like Wolverine or The Man With No Name. They are "flawed" and labeled "anti-heroes." But with that being said, they aren't strictly consequentialists like James Bond or Shaft or Dr. Manhattan or some Tarantino abomination. They elevate and believe in some warrior-like honor code despite being "rough" and fearsome. They are of a noble instinct so they aren't nihilistic. They still embody the heroic but at the same time come across as some ideal that is actually realistic given human experience, if that makes any sense. And in many ways, I think having just the noble honor code (sans the moralizing) is the essence of the old Greek and Roman notions of the heroic and it's completely lost on us today. The idea of meeting force with counter force or deferring to power. Being honorable. Consider that Odysseus is the hero after slaughtering a bunch of parasites in a very "cruel" way in accordance with modern sensibilities. Batman and Superman would presumably consult their hero meta-Bibles before even thinking about killing a murderer and still decide "nay."
In a complicated way unscrupulous characters that masquerade on film today as heroes exist in part because of the same metaphysical formulation which gave rise to the absolute good and absolute evil found on the pages of 1950s Superman instead of hierarchical nobility found within the Odyssey or The Iliad or pagan inspired narratives from the past that emphasize heroic courage and bravery over considerations of good and evil.
"I want characters who stand above us, not amongst us. [I'm giving away my answer to part (B) huh?]"
I understand. I'm an elitist myself. But Superman is not the only possible ideal formulation to represent someone who stands above us. I'm not trying to dissuade you from liking Superman, necessarily. I just want you to consider the other possibilities regarding the heroic and what they mean for the greater culture in the long term.
"I think my original idea was that since we already give up so much realism, accepting men from other planets or billionaires who dress up in tights to fight crime, that we should just go all the way."
I think that does exist. Those comics tend to not sell so well, though. Many of them are the cheesy variety of anime (anime is particularly pretentious at times in this respect) or comic that makes you roll your eyes, probably. Even comic like Transformers, which is about as out there as you can get, has a transcendent archetypal mythology that keeps people wanting more even if they think it ONLY comes down to "big robots."
"We shouldn't try to maintain some realism just because we can get away with thematically. (Applies only to the superhero element, not the Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne storylines.)"
Well, all great literature tells man something about himself even if the aesthetics and backdrops require varying degrees of suspension of disbelief. It's in essence a philosophical "showing" rather than "telling." If it's all just disconnected from experience in the interest of squeaky clean niceness, the writers aren't doing much more than stirring a heap of dirt with a stick, I think. We want our narratives to "move" us in some way. And they only do that by being connected to us in some plausible way. In other words, it's fine to have ideals. But the ideals need to be grounded. And 1950s Superman is not very grounded. And to the extent that he ever was was due to a religious like faith that was destined to die.
(I hope I'm not offending.)
"I just want you to consider the other possibilities regarding the heroic and what they mean for the greater culture in the long term."
I think the flawed-but-heroic, multidimensional heroes, or at least heroic aspects, you look for in the work, are largely absent from cartoon heroes and certainly from modern-day film and television personas.
But they're evident in literature, specifidally detective novels. Think of Elmore Leonard's more ambitious and complicated characters: deeply flawed but often still classically heroic.
Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe fits this to a 'T', the prototype knight/detective metaphor.
As was was mentioned, the "dark and gritty" anti-hero is passed off as hero by Hollywood, and many have bought into it. They will announce a character like Superman to be cliche, while surrounded by endless carbon copies of the worse type of Batman clones.
How is superman wooden? A small town boy living in the big city, a city that rejects many of the values of his upbringing. Yet he forces himself day after day to keep his real self hidden, to be the shining light on the hill to lead others to maybe, just maybe, solve their own problems one day. Oh, and he finds out he's really an alien, not even the same species as those he loves.
Batman, the "complex" character: Parents killed, must use my millions to beat up crooks!
"I think the flawed-but-heroic, multidimensional heroes, or at least heroic aspects, you look for in the work, are largely absent from cartoon heroes and certainly from modern-day film and television personas.
But they're evident in literature, specifidally detective novels. Think of Elmore Leonard's more ambitious and complicated characters: deeply flawed but often still classically heroic."
Well, I used "flawed" in two different senses. In the first sense I mean "flawed" to describe heroes that are unideal in terms of them just flat out not really having any real scruples. Circumstance (usually bad writing) makes them heroes.
In the second instance I used the word I was referring to heroes that we would view as "flawed" from a Christian/secular humanist perspective but that nontheless have an honor code. In other words, I wouldn't actually view them as necessarily flawed myself though many people who like the old squeaky clean heroes from the 1950s would. They are essentially heroics with an honor code instead of a book of morals. I hope that makes sense.
The latter heroic that I described essentially doesn't exist in modern media which is why the closest approximations I could of on the spot that everyone would recognize to a degree were Wolverine and The Man With No Name. Guts from Berserk fits this idea.
The type of "hero" we get on tv today is either an "old fashioned" goodie goodie or the nihilistic type whom becomes a hero via virtue of circumstance, not his character itself. I think men need one who embodies a martial sense of morality. That's what they respect. Not touchy feely. I think the detective novels (Raymond Chandler, for example) tend more toward the nihilistic type. It's really only classical literature that has the older heroic incarnation.
How'd I miss this thread?
Batman, of course. Batman is a man, so we can relate to him. Superman is a man in name only. I could never stand him.
Batman pretty much told Supes what was up in The Dark Knight Returns, when he called him a badge-kisser (paraphrasing).
But Supes and Bats are both kinda old news, really. DC in general was old news before I ever picked up a comic book, and that was in the early 80s.
I like Superman better. Superman is a clean, all-American hero. He seldom has to struggle with "moral dilemmas" -- he knows what is right and does it.
That's why I can't stand him. He never has to make any real choices. Nothing ever costs. No struggle. Superrobot. Deus ex machina. An alien wrapped in the stars and stripes.
1
I could never understand how Superman could have sex.Wouldn't his penile contractions at the moment of orgasm be powered by super muscles amd wouldnt his sperm shoot out with such force that poor Lois would be decapitated?? Nomesayne?
It's plagiarism if you don't give credit. ;)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is popular here and thinking about that I might attribute it to the collective mindset of Ozzies.
There was an RPG based on TMNT. They produced a supplement for it called "After the Bomb." It was basically Mad Max meets talking animals inherit the Earth after GTNW, set in Australia. The bad guys were the evil human supremacist Jakartans.
Pat: There's a "gang"-based comic series that's been quite popular in the US - the X-Men. I understand that that series is associated with various liberal notions, however.
Yes, but like most superhero books, they don't map onto liberal ideas very well. Superhero comics work best along the "me have bullhorn, me talk, you listen" model; role models saying what the authors want readers to believe. They fall apart on the thematic level, though. Superheroes are gifted (bzzzt! Leftist conundrum!), radically individualist (bzzzt!), anarchist (bzzzt!), etc.
Of the modern cartoons I must say, hesitantly, they I very much like the Powerpuff Girls. Especially Mojo Jojo, that monkey cracks me up. Which reminds me, I most always idenitfy with the villain. I liked Lex Luthor for instance whenever seeing Superman and would hope his ingenuity would kick that moral flake Superman's arse.
I agree, the villains (not just in comics) are often easier to identify with. Self-made men, most of 'em. :) Will to power. Goals (other than "stopping the bomb from becoming"). It's only natural for humans to identify more with Luthor, a fellow human, than they do with Super-alien.
Lex relied on ingenuity and intelligence whereas Superman was an alien nancy boy who relied on the fact that he was born with alien super powers. But Lex worked out his weakness and used it against Superman.
Exactly. Superman is arbitrage writ large; nothing among his own kind, he has to slum it with Earthlings to be "Super"man. His people destroyed their own planet, so now we have to put up with his Super-nanciness.
Batman and Superman may actually be Jewish creations for all I know. When regarding American movies I always remind myself that this is not necessarily reflecting foundation Americans. And that certainly corresponds with my experience years ago travelling the USA.
Superman is a Jewish creation. I don't know about Batman. But Superman comes from the superior planet, the superior race, the superior culture, has a semitic-sounding name (Kal-el), black brill-cream hairdo, slums with the inferiors, bringing them enlightenment, is an immigrant (and thus the "true" American), etc. Created by Siegel & Schuster. Basically, a chimera of Jewish self-regard and hangups (including a mostly-Aryan package and hyper-Anglo-Saxon name).
2
Has anyone read the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns"? Would you recommend it? I would have never considered reading a graphic novel, but a friend convinced me to check out "Watchmen" and I have to say it was excellent.
I liked the Watchmen movie better than the book. Alan Moore is a nutcase, and the story improved when it left his hands, IMO. Rorschach really shined. The comic seems to be one long extended dump on the genre that gave Moore his job. Moore cheats too much. He's a coward. In both Watchmen and V for Vendetta, he has to invert reality and turn the west from leftist-dominated to rightist-dominated (really - Britain dominated by Christian fascists? Seriously?) so he can have his heroes fight the system. Coward.
To answer your question, TDKR is a good read, if you don't mind Miller's art, which is, at that point in his career, an acquired taste.
I can't imagine ever reading a graphic novel. Aren't they sort of a nerd version of movies (or movies are de-nerdified versions of graphic novels)?
No. A graphic novel is just a fancy name for a comic book with a heavier cover. The parallel between narrative art (another fancy name for a comic book) and film has always been there.
Also, for any fans of Japanese manga, I highly recommend Berserk which is a Japanese take on European fantasy. The main character, Guts (who looks like a cross between Mel Gibson and Rutger Hauer), should really resonate with a lot of young men.
Lol, I'm DLing Berserk right now. And a couple other titles that caught my interest. I sometimes wonder if Akira would work better if a decent writer (of English) went over the whole thing and gave it an overhaul.
Superman has tremendous power, and has to make a conscious decision every hour of every day to not abuse it.
He's never tempted to abuse it. Thus, his decisions are not at all compelling.
Regarding the Jewish issue, it's somewhat surprising that Superman was written by 1930s NYC Jews given how much his upstanding moral character is supposed to be a reflection of his upbringing in rural Smallville Kansas.
Indeed. Maybe Siegel & Shuster understood my point above about the bullhorn. You make heroes your readers can relate to, and then have them say things you can relate to.
Only Spiderman seems to have such reverent parental figures pushing him towards heroism.
My problem with Spiderman is Peter Parker is too much of a good thing. It's not human, to be that self-sacrificing. What, I wake up one day and I can lift a truck over my head, and I can't make a little money on the side to keep me in Ramen noodles? Gimme a break already.
But I do like Spidey at his best, more than Batman or Supes at theirs. Spidey's the trickster, so he's more entertaining. And his (far more believable than Supe's) nice guy routine works for me.
Post a Comment