It just dawned on me why Superman doesn't excite me anymore

[Sarpedon]

The whole superhero genre seems like a conservative wet dream, to me.

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-horrible-cgi-effects-that-movies-need-to-stop-using_p2/

Duh!
Because if every fckin hero, "super"hero or not, is a superman, there's no fun in Superman!

what is super about batman?

On top of his omnidisciplinary Olympic level athleticism and omnidisciplinary scientific expertise, there's also his durability.

 

[Unbeatable]

He didn't really excite me that much even as a kid.

It depends on your age. Chris Reeves' movies came out when I was pre-pubescent. The age when you're biographically nowhere, under your parents' authority and have nothing barely interisting going on for you. And then you see Superman's visually-updated powers and swift gracile and unstoppable moves... which inevitably establishes the character as a staple of your day- and night dreaming.

I started reading comic books and watching superhero cartoons when I was pre-pubescent. Superman didn't interest me; the X-Men did.

 

[KeepTalking]

The whole superhero genre seems like a conservative wet dream, to me.

Do tell.

 

[Jayjay]

The whole superhero genre seems like a conservative wet dream, to me.

I think it's coincidental. Superhero genre is based on adolescent male fantasy. And apparently, modern conservatism has many elemenets of adolescent male fantasy as well.

 

[Sarpedon]

Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
The whole superhero genre seems like a conservative wet dream, to me.
Do tell.

I think "Watchmen" told it quite well.

The majority of the superhero stories includes most of the following elements: Hero is simply better than everything as anyone else (Batman, Superman, etc), and decides to combat crime using violence, ignoring the corrupt and ineffectual law enforcement (batman, avengers. Superman is at least nice enough to be condensending towards them, or at least he was until the most recent movie). Anyone who suggests that the hero simply doesn't have the right to do this is treated as stupid and or evil (Lex Luthor, that editor guy from spider-man, who is a fucking hero in his own way). Big government is portrayed as stupid, cowardly, and corrupt, local government is simply inept (batman, avengers). Ordinary people are invariably helpless, faceless masses to be saved/sacrificed as plot requires.

So it all seems to match closely to the paternalistic right wing ideology: Some people are just better than others, and the best thing for ordinary people to do is to obey and rely upon them. Superpowers are a pretty transparent metaphor for money. In Batman's case (fucking Batman) it is his only superpower: he has money. Yet he always manages to be right, despite not having any supernatural intelligence: he is just always right. Period. Say what you will about the seventies TV batman, at least he was fallible and believably human. Batman is who every 1% imagines himself to be. An infallible, super intelligent force for good who needs not heed the rules devised by lesser beings.

Superman is basically American Jesus. He's the perfect american as conservatives imagine him, supportive of 'truth, justice and the American Way,' utterly without fault, and unquestionably republican.

This of course goes for the marvel versions of each type, though marvel at least has multi-cultural whiteness to choose from, in the form of the more nordic Thor. Both Thor and Iron Man are a bit more flawed and human than their DC counterparts, but that doesn't diminish their essential sameness.

There are other superheroes out there, including token black and woman ones, but virtually all of them partake of the same formulas of vigilantism and scorn for 'mediocrity.' The X-men deserve special mention as they are persecuted for having special powers, which is a common complaint from the right wing: The rich and powerful are being persecuted by the jealous, mediocre masses, and the state is the instrument of that oppression.

I think it's coincidental. Superhero genre is based on adolescent male fantasy. And apparently, modern conservatism has many elemenets of adolescent male fantasy as well.

You may be on to something here.

 

[Draconis]

One of the strangest things about these well-nigh invulnerable superheroes is what happens to their costumes when they are shot at. Now if you shoot at a bit of cloth, you make a a hole in it. Yet you can shoot at Supes's costume all day long, and there's never a mark on it. Do Kryptonians make invulnerable clothes too?

 

[bilby]

One of the strangest things about these well-nigh invulnerable superheroes is what happens to their costumes when they are shot at. Now if you shoot at a bit of cloth, you make a a hole in it. Yet you can shoot at Supes's costume all day long, and there's never a mark on it. Do Kryptonians make invulnerable clothes too?

He's an alien. Perhaps that's not so much a costume as a pelt?

 

[Unbeatable]

The X-men deserve special mention as they are persecuted for having special powers, which is a common complaint from the right wing: The rich and powerful are being persecuted by the jealous, mediocre masses, and the state is the instrument of that oppression.

To me, the more obvious parallel is geeky adolescent males bullied by their peers for their academic performance and unconventional interests. Granted, I was never personally bullied, but given my academic giftedness and social anxiety/awkwardness, I nonetheless lived the bulk of my adolescence in a state of paranoia about the potential for persecution at the hands of the unwashed masses. I found the X-Men's setup quite relatable, since at the time I was reading, they spent more time struggling to defend themselves against various attempted genocides than actively going out and doing the altruistic superheroism schtick like Superman et al.

One of the strangest things about these well-nigh invulnerable superheroes is what happens to their costumes when they are shot at. Now if you shoot at a bit of cloth, you make a a hole in it. Yet you can shoot at Supes's costume all day long, and there's never a mark on it. Do Kryptonians make invulnerable clothes too?

Yes, in some versions they do. In other versions, Superman's costume is invulnerable because it's protected by a thin forcefield generated by his body. In current canon, Superman wears invulnerable skintight armor. Before he found the armor, he wore ordinary clothes that did tear.

 

[Underseer]

I think "Watchmen" told it quite well.

The majority of the superhero stories includes most of the following elements: Hero is simply better than everything as anyone else (Batman, Superman, etc), and decides to combat crime using violence, ignoring the corrupt and ineffectual law enforcement (batman, avengers. Superman is at least nice enough to be condensending towards them, or at least he was until the most recent movie). Anyone who suggests that the hero simply doesn't have the right to do this is treated as stupid and or evil (Lex Luthor, that editor guy from spider-man, who is a fucking hero in his own way). Big government is portrayed as stupid, cowardly, and corrupt, local government is simply inept (batman, avengers). Ordinary people are invariably helpless, faceless masses to be saved/sacrificed as plot requires.

So it all seems to match closely to the paternalistic right wing ideology: Some people are just better than others, and the best thing for ordinary people to do is to obey and rely upon them. Superpowers are a pretty transparent metaphor for money. In Batman's case (fucking Batman) it is his only superpower: he has money. Yet he always manages to be right, despite not having any supernatural intelligence: he is just always right. Period. Say what you will about the seventies TV batman, at least he was fallible and believably human. Batman is who every 1% imagines himself to be. An infallible, super intelligent force for good who needs not heed the rules devised by lesser beings.

Superman is basically American Jesus. He's the perfect american as conservatives imagine him, supportive of 'truth, justice and the American Way,' utterly without fault, and unquestionably republican.

This of course goes for the marvel versions of each type, though marvel at least has multi-cultural whiteness to choose from, in the form of the more nordic Thor. Both Thor and Iron Man are a bit more flawed and human than their DC counterparts, but that doesn't diminish their essential sameness.

There are other superheroes out there, including token black and woman ones, but virtually all of them partake of the same formulas of vigilantism and scorn for 'mediocrity.' The X-men deserve special mention as they are persecuted for having special powers, which is a common complaint from the right wing: The rich and powerful are being persecuted by the jealous, mediocre masses, and the state is the instrument of that oppression.

I think it's coincidental. Superhero genre is based on adolescent male fantasy. And apparently, modern conservatism has many elemenets of adolescent male fantasy as well.

You may be on to something here.

Yes, there are distinctly fascist elements to superheroes, and this has been commented on before, but Superman is an immigrant metaphor, not a Jesus metaphor. Also, the X-Men were specifically inspired by the holocaust and the civil rights movement. The X-Men don't represent rich people, they represent an oppressed minority. Although the story was originally supposed to be about the plight of Jews and African-Americans, it turns out to also be a remarkably good metaphor for what GLBT teens endure.

 

[Draconis]

One of the strangest things about these well-nigh invulnerable superheroes is what happens to their costumes when they are shot at. Now if you shoot at a bit of cloth, you make a a hole in it. Yet you can shoot at Supes's costume all day long, and there's never a mark on it. Do Kryptonians make invulnerable clothes too?

He's an alien. Perhaps that's not so much a costume as a pelt?

Yes, that's occured to me too. Does that mean that Supergirl is effectively walking around naked? Hmmm.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the suit is some kind of invulnerable Kryptonite cloth, why doesn't he save himself a whole lot of trouble and let Lois Lane wear it and then change shirts after someone shoots a machine gun at him? Given how often he needs to interrupt his day to go and save her from something or another, if she has it on he could tell her not to bother him unless the danger she's in is like an 8 out of 10 or higher.

 

[Jayjay]

If the suit is some kind of invulnerable Kryptonite cloth, why doesn't he save himself a whole lot of trouble and let Lois Lane wear it and then change shirts after someone shoots a machine gun at him? Given how often he needs to interrupt his day to go and save her from something or another, if she has it on he could tell her not to bother him unless the danger she's in is like an 8 out of 10 or higher.

Assuming Superman's clothes are invulnerable, that wouldn't necessarily make the wearer invulnerable. Imagine a bullet being fired at Lois Lane wearing superman's tights... the result would be bullet and the cloth hitting her with the same amount of force that the bullet would have. And since the cloth that the tights are made out of is rather flexible (otherwise, it wouldn't really be skin-tight on Superman) it wouldn't absorb that much of the force.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not a big deal. If it doesn't work, he just flies around the world fast to go back in time and shows up to save her. I'm just saying that he's a busy man and if Lous can find a way to cut her life-threatening situations down to only once or twice a day, that would be helpful.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

In one of the most unknown Superman stories ever, he accidentally butt-raped the invisible man.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, there are distinctly fascist elements to superheroes, and this has been commented on before, but Superman is an immigrant metaphor, not a Jesus metaphor. Also, the X-Men were specifically inspired by the holocaust and the civil rights movement. The X-Men don't represent rich people, they represent an oppressed minority. Although the story was originally supposed to be about the plight of Jews and African-Americans, it turns out to also be a remarkably good metaphor for what GLBT teens endure.

That may be what the artists and creators think, but how about the massive media conglomerates who own and control the properties? How do they see them? Does a piece of art just have to mean only one thing? These comics are published because both the artist and the money people responded to them. There are a myriad of creative projects that don't get made because the money people don't respond to them.

And of course you ignore that the rich try to portray themselves as an oppressed minority. The whole 'Atlas Shrugged' idea. Persecution is a powerful idea. The ones doing the persecuting invariably portray themselves as the persecuted.

 

[Kharakov]

He's an alien. Perhaps that's not so much a costume as a pelt?

Yes, that's occured to me too. Does that mean that Supergirl is effectively walking around naked? Hmmm.

I read that as "not so much a costume as a pet?" which makes me wish I was Supergirl's pet, and very glad I am not Superman's.

 

[Mumbles]

In any case, I'll say why I actually am looking forward to Superman/Batman:

Supes first fight was against General Zod and crew, but instead of safely escorting Zod out into the wilderness as we expect, he let Zod destroy half* of the city of Metropolis. That was a massive fail on his part. So when Lex Luthor shows up saying "Are we going to trust this guy?", he'll have a pretty good point. Same will go for Batman and Wonder Woman. It's obviously a much darker version of Superman, but I'd like to see where they take it.

Personally, if we see a fight between the League and Atlantis/Aquaman in a movie...that'll be right after Black Panther in my mind for great Comic Movie Moments.

*: Estimate, may not be true.

 

[Underseer]

Yes, there are distinctly fascist elements to superheroes, and this has been commented on before, but Superman is an immigrant metaphor, not a Jesus metaphor. Also, the X-Men were specifically inspired by the holocaust and the civil rights movement. The X-Men don't represent rich people, they represent an oppressed minority. Although the story was originally supposed to be about the plight of Jews and African-Americans, it turns out to also be a remarkably good metaphor for what GLBT teens endure.

That may be what the artists and creators think, but how about the massive media conglomerates who own and control the properties? How do they see them? Does a piece of art just have to mean only one thing? These comics are published because both the artist and the money people responded to them. There are a myriad of creative projects that don't get made because the money people don't respond to them.

And of course you ignore that the rich try to portray themselves as an oppressed minority. The whole 'Atlas Shrugged' idea. Persecution is a powerful idea. The ones doing the persecuting invariably portray themselves as the persecuted.

The artists and writers did not intend to create a fascist parable. That was entirely unintentional.

 

[Perspicuo]

The whole superhero genre seems like a conservative wet dream, to me.

I think it's coincidental. Superhero genre is based on adolescent male fantasy. And apparently, modern conservatism has many elemenets of adolescent male fantasy as well.

You nailed it, Sigmund.