Talk:Superhero/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. DO NOT EDIT IT!

If you wish to comment on anything here, copy it to Talk:Superhero and comment there

Contents

Jan 13 changes

  • I took out the dictionary definition of superhero because most of it was repeated in the list of common traits.
  • I took out the Cybersix picture because there are two many pictures in this section, which makes it cluttered if viewed with a small text size
  • I took out Batman in the gadgeteer category because his status as a gadgeteer is noted below
  • I took out Robocop from the armored hero category because, in my opinion, a hero that wears high-tech armor is different than a cyborg
  • I separated the note about Gargoyles into another entry in the divergent characters example to cover freakish superheroes.
  • I deleted the example of The Spirit because that character is not exactly a superhero. I wanted to make sure that this article contained a history of superheroes and not American comic books in general.

--Rorschach567 22:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete the piece that mentioned Gargoyles? Kchishol1970
At first, I didn't think the Gargoyles characters had enough in common with Spawn, The Demon, Ghost Rider and Hellboy to be added into the same entry. There is quite a difference between looking monstrous and being an actual demon as far as character content is concerned.
I then attempted to try an entry about monstrous-looking heroes (along with Beast, Nightcrawler and The Thing) but I am also uncertain that the Gargoyles have a lot in common with those characters who are at least human or if ugly-looking superheroes are even worth an entry. To me, it seems most in the "divergent character examples" to list important characters that have key characteristics in contrast with the common traits.
Anyway, I'm pretty uncertain about the whole thing so if you have any suggestions on where Gargoyles fits into the divergent characters, I would like to hear them
--Rorschach567 04:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How is it that The Spirit, Unbreakable and Wild Cards aren't germane to the topic at hand while characters like Shang Chi and Judge Dredd are? -Sean Curtin 06:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

There's a school of thought that superheroes - while not limited to comics - are defined by them. So characters whose origins lie outside of comics are not "superheroes" unless they conform in every detail to how superheroes are usually portrayed in comics. And in contrast, characters which originated in comics can be "superheroes" even if they diverge greatly, simply because they're in comics. Personally, I disagree; I think medium is irrelevant. Tverbeek 17:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being "germane to the topic" per se. It's a matter of avoiding wordy explanations for works that exist outside the large trends and thus are not nessescary for a reader to understand what a superhero is and how the genre has evolved in various media, espeacially given that this is a 36kb article.
Anyway, because it seems so controversial, I'll revert the article to slip in Wild Cards.
I would call The Spirit a superhero because he is a disguised man who fights criminals, but another user who editted the article deemed him a "character whith some superhero trapings," and I would like to avoid the complex explanation, espeacially because the series is more influential to story-telling in the comics medium than the character himself is influential to subsequent superheroes.
I'm still not convinced that Unbreakable was not a minor movie that did not influence subsequent cinema (If anyone can get me a references stating that it influenced Daredevil, I would be thankful). Plus, the movie section is heavy on films from the last 10 years.
But if someone else badly wants to throw either back in, as I said, I don't really care that much.--Rorschach567 13:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'First superhero'?

Doc Savage, created several years before Superman, looks an awful lot like a superhero to me. Extraordinary powers and abilities - trained from infancy, his physical and mental capabilities put him on a par with Batman's, and he has his share of super-gadgets. Heroic moral code, vast fortune, big HQ in the Empire State Building *and* a Fortress of Solitude, backstory, catchy nickname ("The Man of Bronze"), and a bunch of high-powered sidekicks to help him "right wrongs and punish evildoers".

The word wasn't around in 1933, but if a character like Doc Savage appeared today we wouldn't hesitate to call him a superhero. Superman is certainly the *definitive* superhero, but is it really justifiable to claim him as the first? --Calair 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact the word "superhero" was around in 1933. I discuss the idea of Superman as the first superhero at length in my dissertation, "The Secret Origin of the Superhero: The Emergence of the Superhero in America, from Daniel Boone to Batman" (American Studies, Michigan State University, 2002) and in my forthcoming "Superhero: Secret Origin of a Genre." The problem with discussing Doc Savage as the first superhero is that if he's a superhero, then so is Gilgamesh, and so there's no superhero genre. Doc Savage is a super hero (a hero who is super) but not a superhero (protagonist of the superhero genre). A super hero fits Northrop Frye's definition of a romance hero: In romance, the hero is “superior in degree to other men and to his environment” but is identified as a human being, and “moves in a world in which the ordinary laws of nature are slightly suspended" (Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. New York: Antheneum, 1957. p. 33). So the idea that Doc Savage is a superhero is just a confusion between super hero and superhero and a failure to recognize that the superhero genre is a genre unto itself and not part of other genres of the adventure meta-genre like science fiction, detective, and pulp hero. Dr. Peter Coogan


Superman is a bit like Christopher Columbus. If you look carefully, you discover that maybe he wasn't really the first, but his significance is the same as if he were. After him - and because of him - others quickly followed in his wake and everything changed. Or you could liken Doc Savage to John the Baptist: just a man preparing the way for the superman. ;) But to avoid dispute over the question, your suggestion of instead calling him the "definitive" superhero is a good one. Tverbeek 12:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really question the entire idea that Superheroes are even a new concept. Superhero stories are an essential part of all human mythology. Many of the Norse gods, the Roman and Greek Gods, the Egyptian gods, etc. are superheroes. If you read Navajo mythology, you quickly realize that much of it is a superhero story.
I think the distinction between god and superhero is that a God (captial G) primarily exists to explain creation, and is prayed to to influence the outcome of events, whereas a superhero primarily exists to provide guidance by example and to provide a good story. Thus, Hercules was a superhero, while Zeus was a God. In Christian mythology (boy, this will piss some people off - sorry) the Trinity is/are a God, while some of the Saints might be viewed as superheroes. Farcast 03:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

6/28/05 revision

Here’s some reasoning behind my latest revision, which I worked on over the last three days. I hope everyone liked (or at least doesn’t hate it). I’m up for civilly discussing any part of it. Here is some reasoning behind the changes:

  • Generally I tried to cut down on examples and wordy sentences to make the article shorter, more readable and more to the point. Sorry if I cut anyone’s favorite hero but I tried to leave only the examples most needed to explain the main points.
  • Made the subject headings less wordy
  • Deleted all credits to inkers next to images. I have nothing against inkers (they’re certainly not “tracers”) but I think the images should be consistent. Unless we can credit every inker than we should not credit any. Also, I tried to limit the information in captions to that which was not explained in the adjacent text.
  • Deleted images of Superman and Batman in Common Traits and replaced them with Ross picture in intro. Added Captain America and Green Lantern who are, in my opinion, the two most important superheroes whose images are not seen later.
  • Specified that Japan is a huge “producer” of superheroes in the common traits section and gave tokusatsu series a subsection under live action series because a) aside from the fact that American shows inspired the first Japanese shows, the Japanese and American live action series developed pretty independently b) I wanted to note the specific trademarks of tokusatsu heroes. If anyone more familiar with tokusatsu could shape it up, that would be great.
  • Got rid of two divergent character types: heroes for hire (too singular) and heroes-without-superhero-identities-per-se (TV shows featuring superheroes outside superhero genre are covered under live action series)
  • Also added comedic superheroes that not French-related.
  • Shortened section of genre’s dominance of American comics and added to end of silver age. I added the section in full to American comic books, where it seems more relevant.
  • Created separate section on diversity because this information seemed out of place intertwined in sections that mostly dealt with commercial success and psychological profile. Added information on 1970s X-Men and Milestone Comics to complete the section.
  • Images: Traded first appearance of Captain Marvel with first appearance of Batman because that seems more of a milestone
  • Images: Traded Watchmen cover for Watchmen cast because covers were the only images in the comic book history section
  • Got rid of large section of “Deconstruction” because a) a lot of it was pop philosophy psychobabble that may not be assessable to any reader and b) it seemed like a POV interpretation more than a history
  • Added a little more on 2000s
  • Created section on “Animation” rather than animated subsection of TV shows to allow Superman serials in a more proper place (although shown in theaters they had more influence on animated television series than films)
  • Added section on animated animal superheroes because, as much as we may hate to admit it, they are some of the most recognizable superheroes to general public. Tried to keep it mercifully brief.
  • Deleted Spider-Man cartoon image because it was grainy
  • Deleted Captain Marvel poster because movie section is too crowded and TV section gives good indication of what early superheroes on film looked like
  • Replaced Incredibles image with X2 image because I though the leather-clad X-Men were a better representation of how superheroes have been adapted to big screen in recent years than digitally animated family
  • Added small section on radio because, while brief and not diverse, superhero radio shows increase the visibility of superheroes during difficult early days.

- Rorschach

Bias Question

I'm a bit concerned about the obvious bias against the Batman TV show of the 1960s. Wikipedia is supposed to be a bit more neutral in its opinions. Who exactly are "many comic book experts?" Do they have PhDs in Comicology? I have been reading comic books since the early 60s, so I'd consider myself an "expert" (whatever that is) and the show certainly didn't give me a negative impression of superheroes at all. Quite the opposite actually. I think the section should be rewritten.Andacar 22:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so common traits

  • A secret identity
  • A code name used in lieu of the hero's real name, usually to protect the hero's identity, sometimes adopted to honor a previous hero (e.g. the Flash III, who adopted the name and mantle of the Flash upon the death of his mentor Barry Allen, and was known by this name even when his identity was public)
This seems redundant to me. A secret identity implies the use of a code name to protect the true identity. Also, I don’t think taking on a previous hero’s name is common enough to be listed under common traits. There may be some prominent examples (The Flashes, Green Lanterns, Robins) but only a small percentage of the entirity of superheroes have done so.
  • A sidekick, who is usually a young child or teenager. Famous sidekicks include Batman's sidekick Robin the Boy Wonder and Captain America's sidekick Bucky.
Do we really need two explanations of sidekicks, one under common traits and one under the team explanations? Also, since the 1960s, I don’t think sidekicks are common enough to be considered a “common trait”

- Rorschach

Thanks

Thanks for the change. I like the new version much better! Andacar 22:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bishop

Under Struggles of the 1990s it is suggested that Jim Lee created Bishop of the X-Men as an anti-hero. While it is true that Bishop fits that mold, he was actually created by Whilce Portacio and John Byrne, not Jim Lee. That part of the article should probably be re-worded. --PW 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning Up This Article

The current version of this page has a lot of problems, the most pressing of which is size; the page is 48 KBs long, 50% more than preferable. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Please tell me what you think:

  • In seems like we’ve all gone picture crazy. The article appears a bit cluttered. I understand that superheroes are inherently visual creatures but maybe it would be best to use only one or two pictures per subsection (Three or four if the section is particularly large).
  • There is a constant problem of editors adding esoteric, unimportant information to note small, possible exceptions to the traits listed. Only a tiny number of superheroes have names that naturally sound like codenames and few have appearances that emulate costumes. There are also comments that I don’t think are entirely true. Although some of the details were lost to comic book logic, up until Grant Morrison’s run, the X-Men did have secret identities; their names, headquarters and roster were hidden from the general public. If we warn in advance that generalizations are certainly not all-inconclusive, we should only outline exceptions on two basis:
1) If it is representative of a segment of the superhero population. It’s good to note that not all superheroes have special powers because many don't. It is not important to note that some superhero costumes are "alive" because only a tiny number are.
2) If it is an important superhero that greatly varies from the description. An outline of the Hulk’s personality is important because he is a very well-known superhero. An outline of The Maxx’s is not so important unless using him as an example of some larger category.
  • I doubt the Crow or Lobo are superheroes and I am certain the Sandman, if referring to the Modern Age/Neil Gaiman incarnation, is not.
  • Is there any way to shorten the costume section? This is another part that seems to ramble into small exceptions.
  • There are two explanations of anti-heroes in this article and I am not sure why.
  • I don’t think the concept of else worlds “deserves mention.” Yeah, these stories are common in comics but I don’t see what an explanation here does to help people understand what a superhero is and how the concept has been adapted and developed.
  • Folding superhero films into its own section doesn’t seem like a bad idea. How about the same with live action shows and animation?
  • Don’t be sloppy and inconsistent. There doesn’t seem to be any consensus about linkifying a superhero name on first reference or on every reference, whether the name of a TV show should be in italics and there are many passages that show passive voice and other hallmarks of poor writing. Also, watch your spelling.
  • There need to be more links and references in this article. These articles could be edited by anyone for any reason. Thus, it is important to get an external or internal link to verify information, especially if that information may not seem obvious like “Until recently it was said that original superhero games were cursed because the projects that tried to use original heroes were either canceled before release or did very poorly in sales.” I’m not saying that this is untrue, I’m saying I’d prefer some other source backing it up.

- Rorschach567 8/26/05

I editted the page with most of the above concrns in mind. I forgot to log-in but, trust me, it was me. I'm still up for discussing it if anyone has any concerns. - Rorschach567 9/02/05

Some suggestions for cleaning up

I find sections 1, 2, and 3 are the least good. Too long and not very informative. Many "characteristics of superheroes" are shared with plain fictional "heroes" like Indiana Jones or Zorro or Sherlock Holmes.

  • Wouldn't it be interesting to explain how these traits appeared as a result of companies copying each other's successes (Darwinian evolution), or the use of a medium where "colorful" outfits are the norm, or a medium aimed at a young audience? Superheroes need be iconic because of the serialized medium (they must be recognized immediately). They must also be iconic because of the fancy names: when you are Batman, everything about you must be batty: looks, dwelling, etc. However, like with pro wrestlers, these highly distinctive looks are just a marketing gimmick and all superheroes have the same moves. They are strong, smart. They all fly, perhaps with a web or jetboots. They all send powerful rays or energy bursts (but each hero has his own color).
  • We should underline better that the archenemies are negative versions of the heroes. What's the difference between the Frightful Four, the Red Ghost and his super-apes, and the Super-Skrull? Answer: they are all mirror images of the FF. PhS 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Superhuman

How does one go about gaining superhuman abilities?

10/16/05 changes

  • At the excellent suggestion of User:PhS, I added that a supervillain is often the dark twin of a superhero and that superheroes often employ themes and motifs. Because Batman was the best example of a "theme" superhero but was already mentioned several times in the common traits section, I used other examples for the headquarters and motivation blurbs.
  • Put the "other general characteristics" back in the common traits section. I just think it flows better. Any arguments?
  • Replaced space opera with more general science fiction to describe Green Lantern and X-Men. Only on some occasions do X-Men comics resemble space operas (Phoenix Saga ect.)
  • Put Iron Man’s costume in with functional superhero costumes; the entry on Cable, Image Comics characters is more about style and time period than function.
  • Transferred mention of Super Dupont to comedic superhero section, eliminated Cerebus. Comedic, yes but is he really a superhero?
  • Re-added reference to Gladiator as a recent discovery. Otherwise, it seems as if the novel was incredibly influential to comic book creators from 1940s until the 1980s, which, as far as I understand, it was not.
  • Got rid of Rorschach as a very popular character in the beginning of the 1990s. I’m not sure that was true. Watchmen was an acclaimed series but was Rorschach in particular such a star? If he was, then I think we would have seen a lot more marketing. Also, I can’t draw a direct link from Rorschach to such heavily commercial characters as Cable and Venom.
  • Eliminated double mentions of Spawn’s popularity
  • Eliminated reference to Fatal Attractions. Is that storyline really on par with the Death of Superman and Knightfall in terms of media attention and change to a classic character?
  • Changed “characters of color” back to “non-Caucasian characters.” I’m not an expert on the term “person of color” but I’ve never heard it applied to Asians and Native Americans.
  • Eliminated double mentions of Black Panther.
  • Clarified Yellow Claw entry and Red Wolf entries. Got rid of needless mention of Jimmy Woo. Can anyone with more knowledge of him write a Red Wolf (comics) article, even just a stub?
  • Put links to sites about Red Wolf and Yellow Claw next to mention of them in article
  • Changed sexual orientation characters to gay characters because no transgendered, bisexual or other minority superheroes were mentioned (I'm not aware of any)

-Rorschach567 ME GUSTARIA QUE MENCIONARAN LAS CONSECUENCIAS QUE TRAE EL ELIMINAR UN SUPERHEROE QUE DEJA Y TIENE PRESENCIA ENTRE LOS FANS DEL MUNDO DELOS COMICS ,POR EJEMPLO LA MUERTE DE JEAN GREY,EN LA SAGA DE END SONG PHOENIX ,ES MUY LAMENTABEL QUE ELLA LA HAYAN SACRIFICADO ,SIN MAS ,POR UN PERSONAJE APARENTE MENTE MENOR Y SIENDO QUE ELLA SIEMPRE A REPRESENTADO UNA DIFERENCIA ENTER LOS XMEN SIEMPRE Y AHORA , BUENO ES TODO

I personally still contest including Spider-Man as a divergent current character example. His popularity as a very human superhero has been tremendously influential in deepening the character type and having him labelled an apparent anamoly belittles that influence. In addition, Adam Strange shouldn't be listed. He's more a variation of Buck Rogers than a superhero.--kchishol1970 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My book "Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre" comes out in July from MonkeyBrain Books and contains a long chapter on supervillains that should be helpful. Also the book is a revision of my dissertation on the superhero genre, so I hope it will help clarify some of these issues. Regarding "characters of color" vs. "non-Caucasian", I've seen/heard "people of color" applied to Native Americans and Asians, and also the word "Caucasian" has a pretty weird, racist origin and probably shoudln't be used, but I'm not an expert on it either.

Speaking of costumes..

Does anybody else think it's pertinent to mention the eyeholes of a superhero's mask appearing white and blank in comics? Does that occur in any non-hero comics? I think it's something we all come to terms with and ponder when we're kids and we first discover comics.. and something we think about again when the live action versions come out and they don't have them..