# Comic Book characters, the 'Super Hero' genre, and their current popularity.



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

I figured rather than continue derailing another thread, I'd go ahead and start one specifically on this subject.

I started off reading comics at a very early age, and collected them for most of my life. I've still got a box of 'em sitting in the next room, as well as quite a few graphic novels tucked away in various places.

A lot of people ( most, maybe ) dismissed the whole idea of them being anything but childish and silly, for most of the time I was the most immersed in 'em.

These days though, they're a helluva lot harder to ignore or claim that they're just worthless, or waste of time.

Now I know that the biggest reason for their increased popularity is due to the movie and TV industry, and them finally having the technology and means to present them properly.

( Having watched a lot of the earlier efforts, and knowing how bad they were, it's not difficult to see why they were seen the way they were for so long. )

Now days though, well... I've lost count of how many TV shows there are on the air. Here's a list of the ones that come to mind, or that I can remember at the moment:

Arrow - ( The Green Arrow, DC comics. )
The Flash - ( DC comics. )
Supergirl - ( DC comics. )
Black Lightning - ( DC comics. )
DC's Legends of Tomorrow - ( Multiple characters, DC comics. )
Batwoman - ( Kate Kane/Batwoman - DC comics ) This one hasn't premiered yet. Ruby Rose has the title role. It'll be on sometime soon.
Constantine - ( DC comics ) This one's been a movie, a short-term series, but the same character and actor can be found on DC's Legends of Tomorrow, currently.
Gotham - ( DC comics/Fox ) An early, alternate universe pre-Batman story.
There's also Riverdale, on the CW, and The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, on Netflix, which are both from the old Archie comics.

The Gifted - ( Multiple characters, Marvel comics. ) Sorry folks, no X-Men yet, but these are mutants, and make several references to the X-Men. )
Marvel's Runaways - (Multiple characters, Marvel comics. ) Similar to The Gifted. Haven't seen it yet.
Legion - ( Marvel comics. ) Also from the X-Men books, originally. Haven't seen it yet either. )
Cloak and Dagger - ( Marvel comics. )
Daredevil - ( Marvel comics ) Netflix - canceled due to goings-on with the Disney/Fox merger.
Luke Cage - ( Power Man - Marvel comics ) Netflix - canceled due to goings-on with the Disney/Fox merger.
Iron Fist - ( Marvel comics ) Netflix - canceled due to goings-on with the Disney/Fox merger.
Jessica Jones - ( Marvel comics ) - Netflix - Still with us, for the moment, but expected to get the same treatment as all of the Netflix/Marvel shows, for the same reason.
The Punisher - ( Marvel comics ) Netflix - Same as above.

Then there's Lucifer. A comic-based story concerning the devil. Was on Fox, I think, got canceled, but currently lives on, on Netflix, since they picked it up and are continuing to produce it.

DC comics has it's own streaming service now, with several new shows, old movies, old TV shows, etc. They also have a bunch of animated movies that a lot of their live-action stuff borrows from.

I'll add a note here that there are MANY animated TV shows that have been on over the years, some of which are among the best work their respective companies/creators have done.

The same for animated movies as well, especially since that medium makes it easier to pull off certain effects that live action hasn't been able to touch, until recently. They also have very strong characters and stories in many cases as well. 

That's all I can think of right now, in the way of TV shows.

I'm not even gonna try to list all the movies.
Marvel Studios has 22 of 'em out as of right this minute, with more on the way.
DC comics has quite a few, also with more on the way.
Fox has the X-Men movies, Blade, The Fantastic 4, Spiderman, and I can't remember what else from a while back, as well as Deadpool, Logan, and Venom, more recently.

...and I know I'm forgetting or leaving out a lot more.

None of these characters are exactly new. Most have been around for more than 20 years, with many having begun back in the 1930s or '40s.

And none of 'em are shallow, two-dimensional characters.

But then given their long histories and back-stories, how could they be?

So... What's your take on all of this? What's your opinion of seeing what started out being seen as an insignificant form of writing beginning to 'take over the world'?

( We won't even talk about how much money this stuff has made. Several of these movies have made  a billion dollars or more though. )

Oh, and feel free to add the stuff I overlooked or just missed.

And I'm also curious to know if any of you think that the super hero type of character is worth exploring in your own writings.


G.D.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Feb 9, 2019)

You left out all the animated television and movies that have bee made over decades. To me DC's best work has been their animated movies; probably because of the higher influence directly from comic writers. You could even go back to the old radio series for Superman. As you mentioned the improvement of technology has been the difference in which characters can be made into T.V. show or movies. Imagine how a character like Groot would look if it required a person in a costume and on stilts.

I do write characters with powers but I don't place them in a context that would have them be called superheroes. The right picture sometimes says so much more than words. The emotions and surprise created when a reader turns a page and sees an image for the first time can sometimes be difficult to replicate in words. Overall I do think the movies have illustrated how important writing is for a good story. Great actors and special effects in a poorly written story still sucks.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

K.S., I didn't cover all of the animated TV shows, mostly because there's just too many to list.

I did mention DC's streaming service, where things like Young Justice, Flashpoint, etc. can be found.

And yeah, I agree that's some of DC's best work.

Also, I'm using the term "Superhero" as a sort of generic thing, meaning "People with powers or abilities".

See Marvel/Fox's _The Gifted_ for an example of that. ( The people in it are just trying to survive. )
Also, Jessica Jones in the Netflix series actively rebels at being called a hero, super or otherwise.

I'll add that people really need to stop and remember, when they're oo-ing and ah-ing over their favorite move, that it all had to be written down first, before it could be translated into that visual medium.

Thanks.


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 9, 2019)

I'm gonna add a TV show in here that I just saw, that although not from the comics ( that I know of ) is from a book, and could be viewed in the "super hero" vein:

Siren, on Hulu, at the moment.

It's about Mermaids... ( And Mermen. )

You can forget all about Disney's Little Mermaid, or Daryl Hannah's Splash. 'Cause Ryn, ( a mermaid ) is one bad bitch. All of her folks are. And they are an interesting twist on an old legend/myth. Definitely 'superhero-ish'.

You can find info on the show all over the 'net, and as I said, Hulu currently has it.

Edit: Here's an interview with the cast, for anybody interested. They explain things a lot better than I did here.


G.D.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Feb 10, 2019)

Superheroes have always been popular, and will remain so for some time. As someone who started collecting comics when he was 10 years old, I can tell you that they are a way of envisioning oneself as something greater than we are. Comics and their superheroes are escapism at its finest. In a lot of cases, comics and their heroes have taught us important lessons about the world, life, and even ourselves. They can be empowering and informative, helping us see beyond what we usually would.

We see a superhero and sometimes try to emulate said superhero, becoming better people along the way. Comics have something for everyone, no matter who you are or what situation you're in at that moment.

Comic heroes are in no way 'worthless' or a 'waste of time'. People who slam comics in general seem to have a lack of creativity, and that's sad. When I was a kid and was only 20 comics into my collection, my late grandfather encouraged me to read comic books, even suggesting some titles from his childhood which I started to seek out. Not only did I find new heroes, but also learned the history lessons behind them and how they came to be almost 50 years before.

I still collect on and off today, and my collection is over 730 titles. Sometimes I go into my boxes just to look at a cover from yesteryear, and remember how and when I got said comic, the memory of the day bringing a smile to my face.

-JJB


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> Comic heroes are in no way 'worthless' or a 'waste of time'.



I think it's safe to say the rest of the world might finally be catching on.

Someone a long time ago said that comics and comic heroes were "modern mythology"... Like Hercules, King Arthur, Robin hood, and Beowulf. 

I certainly agree with that.

I can also say that for me, they were very educational... in a lot of ways.


G.D.


----------



## Dluuni (Feb 10, 2019)

A lot of people dismiss a lot of things as childish and silly in spite of actual merit. People dismiss all the major genres that women stereotypically like reading, for much the same reason that they gush about the masterful wonders of bacon and make jokes about pumpkin spice. They sneer at anything aimed at the younger crowd, until the younger crowd isn't young anymore. They sneer at anything aimed at PoC. You really need to pay attention to who "they" are, and what groups "they" want to see dismissed and belittled.

The dismissal of the genre as 'childish and silly' was done in error because THEY weren't reading them. Now the people who grew up reading that genre are movie producers and they want to make things they like. And the wheel continues to turn.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 10, 2019)

Ignorance, a lack of imagination, and a lack of intelligence have always been the hallmarks of the people that gave me grief about reading comics.

I never noticed any inclination to do so based on age or gender. Probably because there were none. Male, female, young, old... the naysayers always shared the traits I listed at the beginning there.



G.D.


----------



## CyberWar (Feb 11, 2019)

Never been much of a fan for superhero comics or any derivative materials. The abilities of superheroes and villains alike are generally ludicrous, and their costumes tend to be much too gaudy for my tastes. The recent movies have even further strengthened my negative view on the genre, especially after they made a black Heimdall in "Thor". I get that minority quotas are the thing nowadays, but for the love of God, shoehorning a Black guy in the role of a Norse deity is just too much for my taste.

My favourite character from superhero fiction is probably the Punisher, precisely because he has none of the hallmarks of a traditional superhero - no real superpowers, no tasteless gaudy attire and no bleeding-heart do-gooder moral code. Unlike all those other heroes, he is probably the closest thing to realistic and plausible in the realm of superhero fiction.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 11, 2019)

I'm a Marvel fan from way back. My first foray into collecting started with Daredevil #18 (Gladiator) in 1966 and went backward from there. I managed to find single digit issue numbers for DD, Spiderman, Fantastic Four and X-Men (I actually had a copy of #1). All those (several hundred) were donated to a paper drive by my mother while I was off working at a summer camp. So I still have a soft spot for superheros, and have seen many of the movies but the schitck is getting old. Special effects don't impress me anymore and the stories are buried under under them. It's good mindless entertainment, but for me that's all it is.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 11, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> Never been much of a fan for superhero comics or any derivative materials. The abilities of superheroes and villains alike are generally ludicrous, and their costumes tend to be much too gaudy for my tastes. The recent movies have even further strengthened my negative view on the genre, especially after they made a black Heimdall in "Thor". I get that minority quotas are the thing nowadays, but for the love of God, shoehorning a Black guy in the role of a Norse deity is just too much for my taste.




You must'a loved the comics making Thor female a while back then.



CyberWar said:


> My favourite character from superhero fiction is probably the Punisher, precisely because he has none of the hallmarks of a traditional superhero - no real superpowers, no tasteless gaudy attire and no bleeding-heart do-gooder moral code. Unlike all those other heroes, he is probably the closest thing to realistic and plausible in the realm of superhero fiction.



Those are the very reasons so many people like Batman. 

And there are other characters like that.

Go back to the pulp fiction days and you'll find a few. Some of them even got their own comic for a while.

By the way... Why not write one that suits you?




Terry D said:


> Special effects don't impress me anymore and the stories are buried under under them.



Unfortunately it's the same with a lot of movies these days, no matter the genre. They use CGI for nearly everything, including car chases and such.

Practical Effects are becoming a thing of the past, for the most part. 


Pretty soon they won't even need live actors. John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, etc. will be able to make movies again, years after they died.


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 11, 2019)

Terry D said:


> All those (several hundred) were donated to a paper drive by my mother while I was off working at a summer camp.



Yeah, back before I started school, I was given a stack of comics from the 1940's and 1950s that was about 16 inches high. 

I don't remember much about 'em past seeing Batman and Superman in there.

A relative stole 'em and traded 'em off for a carton of cigarettes.

I've often wondered exactly what was in there, and how much they'd be worth now.



G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 12, 2019)

I think the current spate of super-hero movies is the worst thing that has happened to the genre. The movies are formulaic story telling set to the 'best' special effects technology currently offers. Hugely commercially successful and great escapism. It's just a bit of fun, and that's all the genre will now ever achieve. 

I'm not a massive comic book fan, but i think works like The Watchmen are among the great works of arts of humanity. But it will never take its place among them in the public conscious, because super-hero stuff's just a bit of pretty looking fun isn't it.



Guard Dog said:


> Unfortunately it's the same with a lot of movies these days, no matter the genre. They use CGI for nearly everything, including car chases and such.



True, but some film-makers do it well, while others just add more, more, BIGGER, BETTER, FASTER, MOOOOORE. I was so bored watching the Avengers in what what supposed to be the apex action scene i just stopped caring about anything in the film. The only super-hero film i've seen do it well was Judge Dredd: the action complemented the story rather than just being tacked on.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Not to keep beating the movie and TV drum, but have you watched any of the numerous TV shows that are on now?

Most of them don't go overboard with the CGI or special effects, if for no other reason than they don't have that kind of budget.

...and because of that, they spend much more time and effort on the _characters_ and the stories... which is sort'a the reason I started this thread.

Because when it comes right down to it, those are the important parts, at least to me.

I like good effects as much as anyone, but if the story sucks and is filled with cardboard cut-outs of people... I've got no time for it.



G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 12, 2019)

Not super-hero series. I did see an Avengers cartoon series though. It's for kids (made in the 90s?) - but it did a much better job exploring the characters and developing the story than the films. I don't think film is the right medium to explore the genre, it's too complex to get the grand sweeping treatment it gets - or film-makers just haven't figured out how to tell those stories well - and they never will now they know how to make mega-bucks. It doesn't involve telling stories.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Well, first off, 90% of story-telling these days is anchored in money.

Whether it's a publishing company, a movie studio, or whoever is enabling self-publishing... the dollar is at the root of it all.

As far as film not being a good medium for telling comic-based stories... I disagree.

Especially since, when it comes right down to it, 'super heroes' and their stories are just sci-fi fantasy.

Just as the old myths and legends were in their time.

The only real difference in Hercules, King Arthur, etc., someone like the Ripley clone in the 4th Alien movie,  and any of the Watchmen is... their origin. 

You also have to remember that if the story doesn't make money, no matter the medium it's presented in, it's very unlikely there'll be anymore like it, good or bad.

( I personally think the TV series do a better job of mimicking the comics due to them being episodic, and more spread out. There's no need to try and cram everything into a couple of hours. )


G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 12, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Not to keep beating the movie and TV drum, but have you watched any of the numerous TV shows that are on now?
> 
> Most of them don't go overboard with the CGI or special effects, if for no other reason than they don't have that kind of budget.
> 
> ...



Please list a few examples of the shows you're describing. All I find is junk that puts more emphasis on CGI and special effects than story or characters.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Let's see... Most of the Netflix stuff, specifically Punisher and Jessica Jones. 

Then there's Marvel's Runaways, which I just finished.
I also like The Gifted, but they're more dependent on special effects than the first two I listed.

Gotham is also relatively light on effects, though it is a sort of alternate pre-history for Batman.

I've also just started watching Cloak and Dagger over on Hulu, and although it's been light in the effects/CGI department so far, I'm only a couple of episodes into it, so I can't really say yet.

Arrow, over on the CW also isn't eat up with much past explosions and CGI'd bow shots.

Those are about my best recommendations for CGI/Special Effects haters.

Then again, if you really hate the type/genre, there may not be anything at all that suits ya. *shrug*

And I also recommend Siren, even though it's not technically a comic book/super hero movie. ( It might as well be, since Lucifer started out in comics, and Siren is a lot more science-based than it. The two are very similar otherwise. )

By the way... If I describe a young guy running around with a sword that'll cut anything, and an old wise man teaching and training him... Will it be Luke Skywalker and Obi-wan that first comes to mind, or Arthur and Merlin?



G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 12, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Well, first off, 90% of story-telling these days is anchored in money.



True, for now...

It wasn't always like this. The Iliad certainly wasn't subject to the same commercial concerns that confront us today. If the internet is successful in decentralisering human organisation there could be another way forward. The post-scarcity epoch is possible. Economic models are as subject to change as anything in this world.

Anyway, comics and series are as exposed to commercial interests as film, and don't whore themselves out to the same degree.



Guard Dog said:


> As far as film not being a good medium for telling comic-based stories... I disagree.
> 
> Especially since, when it comes right down to it, 'super heroes' and their stories are just sci-fi fantasy.
> 
> ...



The former has stood the test of time. The most recent stories i can think of that have become myth is the Lovecraft's Cthulu mythos. 

There aren't many (any?) films that do justice to the Greek legends. The written medium just conveys something TV has never been able to capture. That's why books endure.



Guard Dog said:


> By the way... If I describe a young guy running around with a sword that'll cut anything, and an old wise man teaching and training him... Will it be Luke Skywalker and Obi-wan that first comes to mind, or Arthur and Merlin?



The Arthurian legends aren't about a young guy running around with a sword and some old wise guy. Among many other things its the struggle of a subjugated Celtic people retaining their identity with the coming of Christianity.

Anyway, i agree in general that super-hero stories could be the myths and legends for generations to come. But it won't happen while the only factor considered is what sells the most. The money it makes should be one variable in story-telling; not the only one. 

Star Wars is a good example. The original trilogy could easily have become part of Western mythology. But then George Lucas wanted some more money and proceeded to shit on the original mythos. It's soiled now, just one more product for people to consume.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> True, for now...
> 
> It wasn't always like this. The Iliad certainly wasn't subject to the same commercial concerns that confront us today.



I'll have to take your word for it, since I'm not that old.

I don't know much about the economic or social situation back then, or what Homer might have gained through writing it, so... I'm not even gonna guess.




epimetheus said:


> If the internet is successful in decentralisering human organisation there could be another way forward. The post-scarcity epoch is possible. Economic models are as subject to change as anything in this world.
> 
> Anyway, comics and series are as exposed to commercial interests as film, and don't whore themselves out to the same degree.



I wouldn't be willing to bet on that last, either.

Comics companies have been selling off and licensing character rights for a long time now. In fact, the current buy-out/merger of 20th Century Fox has served the purpose of putting several major characters back in Marvel's hands.

Also, the movie and comics industry have been well-entangled for a lot of years now.

In fact, a lot of movies have been given comic series, ( Star Wars, among others. ) as have TV series.

It's gotten to the point where TV series have been influencing their parent comic titles.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the comics industry isn't whoring it's self out any less than anyone else in the entertainment industry.

( Remember that both Superman and Batman showed up in movies and TV all the way back in the 1950s. )





epimetheus said:


> The former has stood the test of time. The most recent stories i can think of that have become myth is the Lovecraft's Cthulu mythos.
> 
> There aren't many (any?) films that do justice to the Greek legends. The written medium just conveys something TV has never been able to capture. That's why books endure.



Do you think there's any place on this planet where you could find someone who doesn't know who Superman or Batman are?  

How 'bout Deadpool? And keep in mind he's only been around about 28 years or so.





epimetheus said:


> The Arthurian legends aren't about a young guy running around with a sword and some old wise guy.



I didn't say it was. But if I'd asked that same question in 1975, what do you think the answer would have most likely been? As opposed to now?





epimetheus said:


> Among many other things its the struggle of a subjugated Celtic people retaining their identity with the coming of Christianity.



I wasn't asking about what it is, I was asking from the perspective of how people are likely to _view_ it... Especially in light of all the movies and TV shows on the subject.




epimetheus said:


> Anyway, i agree in general that super-hero stories could be the myths and legends for generations to come. But it won't happen while the only factor considered is what sells the most. The money it makes should be one variable in story-telling; not the only one.



How much money it makes is a good indicator of how widely spread through the population a thing is and how well liked/accepted it is these days.

Also, if that's what the larger percentage of viewers/readers want... doesn't it stand to reason that's what's going to be written/produced?
( There've been a lot of movies/TV series made that didn't do well enough for any more to be produced, despite a large percentage of people wanting more. But that percentage wasn't enough, especially in light of other factors, all of which had to do with money being made elsewhere, by other people. )



epimetheus said:


> Star Wars is a good example. The original trilogy could easily have become part of Western mythology. But then George Lucas wanted some more money and proceeded to shit on the original mythos. It's soiled now, just one more product for people to consume.



For a lot of people, it still very much is a part of their personal mythos. Yeah, there's a certain percentage of that audience that's pissed off with the last few offerings, but they haven't quite given up yet.

...and if it turns out there's a large enough financial reason to do it, Disney will make efforts to repair the damage.

You can count on that.



G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 12, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I'll have to take your word for it, since I'm not that old.
> 
> I don't know much about the economic or social situation back then, or what Homer might have gained through writing it, so... I'm not even gonna guess.



You don't need to guess. The economic models the classical Greeks used are well documented. They had a very decentralised system, even for the times.

But come on, you don't need to know much history to know the economic models of today have changed since classical Greece. My only point is that they change.




Guard Dog said:


> wouldn't be willing to bet on that last, either.



What would you bet on? The pace of social and technological change is faster now than any point in our history: it's a safe bet it will change - but how?



Guard Dog said:


> companies have been selling off and licensing character rights for a long time now. In fact, the current buy-out/merger of 20th Century Fox has served the purpose of putting several major characters back in Marvel's hands.
> 
> Also, the movie and comics industry have been well-entangled for a lot of years now.
> 
> ...



Maybe, i don't know comics books or the industry very well. I'm just prefer stories written by people who sit down and think 'how can i write a good book' rather than 'how can i make some money'. Film just seems to be worse for it than other media



Guard Dog said:


> do you think there's any place on this planet where you could find someone who doesn't know who Superman or Batman are?



Several billion. People in China don't even generally know who Santa Claus is. Indonesians are more influenced by Japanese and Chinese culture. More Indians might have heard of them, but they have their own heros. They're the only cultures i know. 





Guard Dog said:


> I didn't say it was. But if I'd asked that same question in 1975, what do you think the answer would have most likely been? As opposed to now?
> 
> I wasn't asking about what it is, I was asking from the perspective of how people are likely to _view_ it... Especially in light of all the movies and TV shows on the subject.



I don't understand what point you're making here.






Guard Dog said:


> How much money it makes is a good indicator of how widely spread through the population a thing is and how well liked/accepted it is these days.



By that metric Avatar and the Titanic are the best stories humanity has ever told.




Guard Dog said:


> Also, if that's what the larger percentage of viewers/readers want... doesn't it stand to reason that's what's going to be written/produced?
> ( There've been a lot of movies/TV series made that didn't do well enough for any more to be produced, despite a large percentage of people wanting more. But that percentage wasn't enough, especially in light of other factors, all of which had to do with money being made elsewhere, by other people. )



The demographic Disney target want to see women and ethnic minorities in prominent roles, with white men cast as baddies. That's fine, but they can't pretend to be cutting edge. The original Star Trek had the first screen kiss between a white and black people on US TV. Alien had Ripley - one of the most badass heroes, whether male or female, not the popular choice back in the 70s. We're not going to see anything as cutting edge with film by consensus. 

Are you really OK with story telling being reduced to committee?




Guard Dog said:


> For a lot of people, it still very much is a part of their personal mythos. Yeah, there's a certain percentage of that audience that's pissed off with the last few offerings, but they haven't quite given up yet.
> 
> ...and if it turns out there's a large enough financial reason to do it, Disney will make efforts to repair the damage.
> 
> You can count on that.



You really think they're going to improve?  They'll probably just portray the next baddy with Trump like mannerisms to titillate their demographic. Maybe he'll build a big wall instead of a yet another mega death gun. I wish i could be as optimistic as you. The die hard Star Wars fans i know have been wavering for a while, but that last film destroyed them. The community is thinning fast; it'll take quite something to rekindle the sullied mythos of the original trilogy. 


By the way, i'm not saying all film is awful. Even Hollywood puts out some awesome films sometimes. And i'm not against frivolous films you can just get lost in for a while. But that's all super-hero films will ever be under this financial system, where at least some of those stories could be truly transformative. And i'm not anti-capitalist, it's demonstrably the best economic model we have come up with yet, but it's got limits.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 12, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Let's see... Most of the Netflix stuff, specifically Punisher and Jessica Jones.
> 
> Then there's Marvel's Runaways, which I just finished.
> I also like The Gifted, but they're more dependent on special effects than the first two I listed.
> ...



Are these shows or movies? At one point you mention movie, which is why I ask.

To answer your question, nobody. My view of Arthur and Merlin is the recent show, where both were young men, though Merlin sometimes took a potion that made him look old. And Luke had a light saber, not a sword. I can't think of a guy with a sword who runs around cutting people.

Wait. Wasn't there an old, old, movie of Robin Hood who had sword fights? No mentor, though.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 12, 2019)

Jack of all trades said:


> And Luke had a light saber, not a sword.



A distinction without a difference.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> You don't need to guess. The economic models the classical Greeks used are well documented. They had a very decentralised system, even for the times.
> 
> But come on, you don't need to know much history to know the economic models of today have changed since classical Greece. My only point is that they change.



I don't need to know at all.

Poets, painters, etc. have a long history of seeking out patrons.

And their reason for doing that was fortune and notoriety.






epimetheus said:


> What would you bet on? The pace of social and technological change is faster now than any point in our history: it's a safe bet it will change - but how?



I would bet on nobody doing a thing for free, for long, if they have a choice in the matter.

At least not to any degree that would get 'em noticed out in the rest of the world.

And if they're doing something for their own amusement, or other personal reasons, then their payment is whatever they get out of it; satisfaction, amusement, etc.





epimetheus said:


> Maybe, i don't know comics books or the industry very well. I'm just prefer stories written by people who sit down and think 'how can i write a good book' rather than 'how can i make some money'. Film just seems to be worse for it than other media



Just because you don't happen to like the stories, or how they're executed, doesn't mean people are just sitting around churning out crap.

People in all areas of the entertainment industry get paid to produce GOOD work. It just so happens how well that work sells is the yardstick that measures that worth.

A movie makes a billion dollars, you can bet there'll be sequels. It doesn't make it's budget back, odds are it's done, unless someone comes along later and wants to try a different take on it.

And it's been that way for a very long time.





epimetheus said:


> Several billion. People in China don't even generally know who Santa Claus is. Indonesians are more influenced by Japanese and Chinese culture. More Indians might have heard of them, but they have their own heros. They're the only cultures i know.



China's 'affectionate nickname' for Deadpool at the moment is 'Little Bitchy-bitch'.

Comics and movies have a much longer reach, and impact, than you realize or understand, apparently.








epimetheus said:


> I don't understand what point you're making here.



It had to do with perception, and how that changes with time, based on popular culture.








epimetheus said:


> By that metric Avatar and the Titanic are the best stories humanity has ever told.



All I can tell you on that subject is that James Cameron is currently shooting 2 or 3 more sequels to Avatar simultaneously.

As for Titanic... It's kind'a hard to sink a boat twice, so it's done, without it being a sci-fi effort.






epimetheus said:


> The demographic Disney target want to see women and ethnic minorities in prominent roles, with white men cast as baddies. That's fine, but they can't pretend to be cutting edge. The original Star Trek had the first screen kiss between a white and black people on US TV. Alien had Ripley - one of the most badass heroes, whether male or female, not the popular choice back in the 70s. We're not going to see anything as cutting edge with film by consensus.



Disney owns Marvel and Fox now. That's just a fact. And fortunately they tend to let their directors do their jobs. Something DC took a while to learn, but now seem to be catching onto.

The fact is, except for single-author books, most of the stuff you see on a daily basis is done by a committee.

If you count editors and publishers, even written stories are to a degree, since if they don't think THEY can make money with it, they won't touch a particular work.



epimetheus said:


> Are you really OK with story telling being reduced to committee?



Comics in particular have ALWAYS been produced that way, since writers and artists come and go on a regular basis. And they too have editors and publishers.

Hell, even songwriters are subject to the will of the record companies, and also tend to work with other people.

There's very little in the way of truly single-author work to be found anywhere.







epimetheus said:


> You really think they're going to improve?  They'll probably just portray the next baddy with Trump like mannerisms to titillate their demographic. Maybe he'll build a big wall instead of a yet another mega death gun. I wish i could be as optimistic as you. The die hard Star Wars fans i know have been wavering for a while, but that last film destroyed them. The community is thinning fast; it'll take quite something to rekindle the sullied mythos of the original trilogy.



Why not throw Trump in there? Nixon made it into Watchmen.

I personally think Star Wars should've stopped with the original 3 movies. But money dictated otherwise.

...and some people actually like the other movies.

The bottom line is that whatever people will pay to see is what will be made. 

That is simply a long-standing reality.





epimetheus said:


> By the way, i'm not saying all film is awful. Even Hollywood puts out some awesome films sometimes. And i'm not against frivolous films you can just get lost in for a while. But that's all super-hero films will ever be under this financial system, where at least some of those stories could be truly transformative. And i'm not anti-capitalist, it's demonstrably the best economic model we have come up with yet, but it's got limits.



You really need to dig around and learn something about how the entertainment industry works.

Hollywood is finally in a position to mine a resource they haven't been able to, to any significant degree, except for the past 20 years or so.

And a whole lot of people ARE happy to see it happen, and are willing to vote with their wallets to have it continue.

So I'm quite confident that it will, and given what I've seen so far, do believe that it'll all get better.



G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Jack of all trades said:


> Are these shows or movies? At one point you mention movie, which is why I ask.



There's a list in the first post at the top of this thread. I picked out the least effects-heavy shows that I have seen so far, from that list.

There are several movies concerning King Arthur. My favorite is still Excalibur (1981)

There's also a fair few Robin Hood movies. Errol Flynn took a shot at it ( And that''s probably who you're thinking of. ), as did Kevin Costner and Russel Crow. 

Apparently Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx are gonna give it a go next.

For what it's worth, a saber or sabre is a type of sword. Usually curved. And even Luke Skywalker has referred to light sabers as 'Laser Swords'.


G.D.


----------



## Cran (Feb 12, 2019)

There are some not from Marvel or DC [cough] _The Phantom_ [/cough] ... and no doubt _Elf Quest_ will appear on some screen soon enough ... 

The stigma once applied to comic books is an extension of the stigma applied to most cheap pulp fiction (the so-called Penny Dreadfuls: romance, war, western, science fiction, fantasy horror, detective stories, spy stories, etc), and to moving pictures, and for that matter to popular music - vulgar trash to occupy the minds of the masses and keep them in line lest they foment revolution and the aristocracy and "true" artistic geniuses will once again find themselves first against the wall.

Success, and successive generations, led to a less abrasive appreciation of the popular arts and increasing bank interest. The lifelong enjoyment of comic book heroes, antiheroes and outright villains, by multiple generations has allowed for deeper, and often darker, explorations into characters and conflicts which reflect similar crises in real life. The use, at times, of pulp heroes, especially super heroes, to promote or fight for a cause has not escaped many writers, producers or readers. When a pope gets his own comic book, you know the medium has become solidly mainstream. 


*What does it mean for writers now and into the future? *


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

The Phantom (1996)

The Shadow (1994)

Both of those characters are currently owned by DC comics, btw.

As is this one: 



DC bought up a bunch of old pulp characters a good while back. And they've had the rights to classics like John Carter and Tarzan for quite a while now.

They also own the old Shazam/Captain Marvel as well, with a movie of that title being released soon.
( He's just Shazam now, with Captain Marvel being a different character and belonging to Marvel/Disney. She has a movie coming out in a month or two. )


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Speaking of Pulp Fiction characters... how 'bout one that actually isn't, even though it seems like it is?

Anybody remember this guy?

The Rocketeer

The Rocketeer (1991)

Oh, and I hear Disney is planning a sequel/reboot, so the idea of making money is still moving things along.

The Rocketeers


G.D.


----------



## Cran (Feb 12, 2019)

_They bought up The Phantom? >shakes head sadly<_

With Tarzan and John Carter, does that mean future DC/Disney collaborations?

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? None of which has much to do with a discussion of writing, especially within the superhero multiverse. I apologise for sliding off-track.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Cran said:


> _They bought up The Phantom? >shakes head sadly<_
> 
> With Tarzan and John Carter, does that mean future DC/Disney collaborations?
> 
> Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? None of which has much to do with a discussion of writing, especially within the superhero multiverse. I apologise for sliding off-track.



It actually has a lot to do with writing, since it demonstrates how a property/character can be shopped out.

I don't know about the collaboration, but I can point out that rights to Spiderman were sold/leased to Fox, they made several movies, then there was a deal struck where Spiderman was incorporated back into Marvel's Avengers.
( And Fox continued to make movies with him right up until the merger went though. Several of their movies may not get finished now, if Disney doesn't want to move forward with them. )

That was done before Disney bought Fox.

It's also a matter of exactly what sort of character rights DC and Disney have... who has full control of the characters, and who only has rights to do certain things with 'em.

This whole corporate thing is _very_ complicated, and without knowing exactly what the deal says, what the contracts allow... *shrug*

People have been waiting for over a year just to see if the Disney buy-out of Fox would even go through, or be declared illegal by the government and killed.

So far, it looks like it's going through with no problem.

Edit: Here, this may answer more questions than I can.

Disney-Fox Deal Now Expected To Close In Early March


G.D.


----------



## sigmadog (Feb 12, 2019)

Superhero movies lost the "Gee Whiz!" factor for me after the second Avengers, the third Iron Man, and the eighteenth Spider Man. I did, however, enjoy Deadpool because I sensed they realized how tired the form had become and decided to have fun with it. Plus it was a brutal self-parody of the X-Men franchise, which I hate with the heat of a thousand suns. I have no idea if the Deadpool comic is similar, and it's not really important to me if it is.

I think the format is tired, or perhaps I'm tired of the format. It's like working at a chocolate factory, eventually you simply get sick of the product.

I am by no means a student of the superhero genre, and I'm sure there are plenty of arguments to be made that I'm dead wrong because of X, Y and Z. But here's the thing. I really don't care. I've lost my taste for super powers and super villains. 

That's what happens when you over-saturate the market, which is the one skill in which Hollywood has been proven to excel.

So what's next for the genre? Well, I'm sure there's some great derivative work being done, but since I'm pig ignorant of it all, here's my entry:

If I were a big time writer, or even a small time writer tasked to write a superhero story, I would write about the peripheral characters. For starters, who cleans up after a superhero is in a battle with a villain's henchmen? Who takes care of the bodies?

I once did some preliminary notes and possible plot ideas on a concept about a janitorial and body disposal service for superheroes. It had great potential for ridiculous fun and was populated by ordinary characters in extra-ordinary circumstances. 

Of course I'm probably dead wrong and the super hero genre will go on and on to infinity and beyond!


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 12, 2019)

Who knows... Maybe superheros will eventually suffer the same fate as vampires.

( Try selling a vampire-based script in Hollywood right now. )
( By the way, did anyone else notice how vampires went from being monsters to a strange type of superhero over the years? )

The one thing I am sure of is that people need to quit thinking of entertainment media in the traditional ways.

It doesn't matter if it's a traditional book, comic book, audio book, movie, video game, etc.

It all falls under the umbrella of 'intellectual property', and can be shifted from one medium to another in an eye blink.

And it's the folks with the deep pockets who are calling the shots, based on what sells.

So as authors, we all have a choice; write whatever we please, and maybe never get it out to any real audience of any size, or write what sells.


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

Another note on old comics characters:

When I was growing up, there were several other comics companies besides Marvel and DC.

There was Gold Key, Charlton, Atlas, and a few others that I barely remember now.

All of their characters have been absorbed by one or the other of the main two now, Marvel and DC.

There are still plenty of independent companies though, and all sorts of characters that most people have never even heard of.

Many of those WILL be coming to the movies, sooner or later.

In fact, Vin Diesel just signed up to play a character called Bloodshot 

That one is from Valiant Comics.

...so anybody hoping this stuff goes away any time soon best not hold their breath while they wait.



G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I don't need to know at all.
> 
> Poets, painters, etc. have a long history of seeking out patrons.
> 
> And their reason for doing that was fortune and notoriety.



When robots and AI make all our products and deliver all our services the current economic system will not work as it currently does. Maybe governments will switch to universal credit. Maybe tech companies will start acting like governments (we already expect Facebook to act like a government to censor out content). Maybe global economies will truly digitise with block-chain technology. Not sure how old you are, but youngish people will live to see it happen. But this is getting too off-topic now.




Guard Dog said:


> Just because you don't happen to like the stories, or how they're executed, doesn't mean people are just sitting around churning out crap.



Which is why i said Hollywood produces some excellent work.



Guard Dog said:


> People in all areas of the entertainment industry get paid to produce GOOD work. It just so happens how well that work sells is the yardstick that measures that worth.
> 
> A movie makes a billion dollars, you can bet there'll be sequels. It doesn't make it's budget back, odds are it's done, unless someone comes along later and wants to try a different take on it.
> 
> And it's been that way for a very long time.



I haven't disagreed.



Guard Dog said:


> China's 'affectionate nickname' for Deadpool at the moment is 'Little Bitchy-bitch'.
> 
> Comics and movies have a much longer reach, and impact, than you realize or understand, apparently.



Where are you getting your information from?





Guard Dog said:


> It had to do with perception, and how that changes with time, based on popular culture.



I haven't disagreed with this either.



Guard Dog said:


> If you count editors and publishers, even written stories are to a degree, since if they don't think THEY can make money with it, they won't touch a particular work.



And while there are certain topics editors and publishers won't touch due to market forces, film will not be the transformative power so much story-telling has been before.

Again, i'm not contesting that super-hero films are very popular. I'm observing that they haven't influenced people in the same way as the original comics, therefore the film industry is either missing something from the original works or isn't a good medium for the genre. This is a personal observation so maybe your experience is different. It's quite likely that different cultures will have different perspectives.




Guard Dog said:


> You really need to dig around and learn something about how the entertainment industry works.
> 
> Hollywood is finally in a position to mine a resource they haven't been able to, to any significant degree, except for the past 20 years or so.
> 
> ...



In fact the only thing we seem to really disagree is how prominent financial success should be in making a film. I agree it should certainly be a factor. But from your replies it seems that it's the only thing that makes a work a success (you've mentioned it at least 5 times, and not mentioned another criterion). I can understand the want to make an objective marker, but we're talking the philosophy of art now, and that's anything but objective. Again by the financial metric alone the new Star Wars franchise is objectively better than the original trilogy. By a long way. Not many agree with this assessment, so there are obviously other criteria being applied.

As for super-hero *films* there are 2 criteria on which i base my disregard for them as myths on. First, i've met a few people (not many though) who say some comics have transformed their lives - the way art can sometimes. I've yet to meet anyone who has said this of the films. Second, most myths are centuries if not millennia old - they have stood the test of time. Neither of us know whether super-hero films will have that longevity, but i'm willing to bet that market analysis will have people focusing on the next big fad instead.


Actually, my bet would be on VR gaming to become sophisticated enough so that people can actually act the role of a super-hero - flying through space and smashing baddies up. It'll be interesting to see how the film and gaming industry merge.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm 56 in a couple of months, and I get my information by reading and watching what's being said in the comics/movie industry.

Here's one of many articles that can be pulled up on Google, if a person cares to:

‘Deadpool 2’ in China

And maybe in a few years, we all will be sitting around scratching our asses, bored out of our minds because of being unemployed and unneeded.

Personally i think people are being both overly-optimistic and overly paranoid about that, but time will tell.

One way or the other, we ain't there yet.

As far as comparing books, comic books, and movies, and deciding which carries the most weight with people... it's all a matter of opinion.

I can tell you that movie critics are having a fit right now, because movie fans are disagreeing with their assessments, and box office receipts are showing it.

...and the studios are listening to the people spending money, not the people with nothing more than an opinion. 

Then again, what's that saying? "Money talks, bullshit walks."

Yes, the entertainment industry is changing due to technology. And I'd imagine that in the not-too-distant future, it'll be a hybrid of everything going on right now, with actual writing being mostly relegated to producing scripts and such.

...which is it's one saving grace; ya still have to write a thought down, in order to pass it along to other people to turn into anything else.

And to get back to the comics for a second, they have the advantage of both showing and telling, in a literal sense.

With a text-only book, you're stuck with what the author can describe.

I also suspect that a lot of people will want to be completely immersed in a story, playing a part in it. I'm also sure that a lot of people won't want that, preferring to simply be a spectator, with options on where to view things from.

No matter how it plays out, I don't think it's all that long 'til the written word is left out in the cold, and is considered a niche form of entertainment.

( By the way, maybe those paintings on cave walls were the first form of comic book? Passing thoughts along with images instead of words... )

As for comic characters and 'superheros'  themselves... they're still not much good without a good story and an interesting personality.

...and there are many years of both still waiting to be used for something else, whether it's TV, Movies, or Video Games. Or some hybrid of the three.

Here, another source of info on the Comic/Movie/TV industry:

Black Panther and Into the Spider-Verse Nominated For Oscars - Heroes

That show airs every Wednesday, there on Collider's YouTube channel.


G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I'm 56 in a couple of months, and I get my information by reading and watching what's being said in the comics/movie industry.
> 
> Here's one of many articles that can be pulled up on Google, if a person cares to:
> 
> ‘Deadpool 2’ in China




The Chinese have these films, but they're not in the public conscious as in the West, certainly not to the point of being likened to mythological figures. Kind of like how Guan Yu or Zhuge Liang will sometimes make an appearance in a martial arts films/series in the West, but the reference is lost on the western market. I've married into a Chinese family - i've found i can't just assume they know characters like Superman and Batman, i have to ask. The younger generation tend to know a bit more, but even then they might not know about kryptonite or the batbelt. 

Myths influence society. Western super-heros are a long way from influencing Chinese society and probably never will because the Chinese have a very strong culture with their own myths to explore.




Guard Dog said:


> One way or the other, we ain't there yet.



Indeed. 



Guard Dog said:


> As far as comparing books, comic books, and movies, and deciding which carries the most weight with people... it's all a matter of opinion.
> 
> I can tell you that movie critics are having a fit right now, because movie fans are disagreeing with their assessments, and box office receipts are showing it.
> 
> ...and the studios are listening to the people spending money, not the people with nothing more than an opinion.



What's your opinion then? It sounds like you got into comic books before the films. Did you just enjoy the financial success of the comics? Was it just all a bit of fun? Was there something more? 

Have you met anyone moved by the film incarnations? Maybe a girl who saw Wonder Women and felt part of the Me Too movement, empowering her to achieve more. Maybe a black person who felt Black Panther spoke of their modern struggle against the everyday racism of most older white males. 

Please tell me - i've not heard anyone say these sorts of things.




Guard Dog said:


> Then again, what's that saying? "Money talks, bullshit walks."



So money really is all that matters to a piece of work? 

Even from an entirely capitalist perspective you don't just want to pander to your market. As Steve Jobs, one of the most successful capitalists in the modern era, said:

*“Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.”*



Guard Dog said:


> Yes, the entertainment industry is changing due to technology. And I'd imagine that in the not-too-distant future, it'll be a hybrid of everything going on right now, with actual writing being mostly relegated to producing scripts and such.
> 
> ...which is it's one saving grace; ya still have to write a thought down, in order to pass it along to other people to turn into anything else.
> 
> ...



I can imagine a time when we can directly experience someone else's perspective. We can already induce emotions via magnetic stimulation for instance. Interesting times ahead, on that i'm sure we can agree.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> The Chinese have these films, but they're not in the public conscious as in the West, certainly not to the point of being likened to mythological figures. Kind of like how Guan Yu or Zhuge Liang will sometimes make an appearance in a martial arts films/series in the West, but the reference is lost on the western market. I've married into a Chinese family - i've found i can't just assume they know characters like Superman and Batman, i have to ask. The younger generation tend to know a bit more, but even then they might not know about kryptonite or the batbelt.
> 
> Myths influence society. Western super-heros are a long way from influencing Chinese society and probably never will because the Chinese have a very strong culture with their own myths to explore.



May be. But a question: Did you read the article I posted to?  Doesn't sound like the younger Chinese generation is content to sit back and just accept what they're told... and are certainly interested in more, not less of what they've seen in Deadpool and the likes.

...so those things are certainly having an impact on Chinese society.







epimetheus said:


> What's your opinion then? It sounds like you got into comic books before the films. Did you just enjoy the financial success of the comics? Was it just all a bit of fun? Was there something more?



I enjoyed the financial success of the comics when titles I liked didn't get canceled because of poor sales.

I figured that part of the equation out early on; it don't make money, it goes away.



epimetheus said:


> Have you met anyone moved by the film incarnations? Maybe a girl who saw Wonder Women and felt part of the Me Too movement, empowering her to achieve more. Maybe a black person who felt Black Panther spoke of their modern struggle against the everyday racism of most older white males.
> 
> Please tell me - i've not heard anyone say these sorts of things.



You mean other than my own daughter, who very quickly became enamored with comics and comic-based movies?

Who found a personal hero in Abigail Whistler, from the 3rd Blade movies, the same as she did with what's-her-face from Harry Potter, and Katniss Everdeen?
( She loves Black Widow too. )

And do keep in mind we're talking about a kid who had serious issues with being 'different', due to her Autism.
She found a lot of self-confidence she hadn't previously had, due to those characters.

As for Black Panther... go search around for reactions to it, on YouTube. There are plenty of people there that claim it's life-changing for them.




epimetheus said:


> So money really is all that matters to a piece of work?



All? No. But money can and does make the difference between art being seen, and not, more often than not. The two are inexorably entangled, in a lot of ways.

Money makes the difference between a starving street artist, painting old derelict buildings, subway cars, and that sort of thing, and it hanging up in a gallery somewhere.

Money PAYS for the art, and getting it to the people who will appreciate it.



epimetheus said:


> Even from an entirely capitalist perspective you don't just want to pander to your market.



Pander? No.

Listen to them when they tell you what they like and are willing to pay for?  When they try out several of your products that you offer, and show a decided preference for one, and want very little to do with the other(s)?

Y'd kind'a better, if you want to stay in business.

By the way... Do you know why Fox came up for sale?

It's because so many of their prior offerings tanked, and cost them money. They weren't listening to their customers.

And once they, Fox, got far enough in the hole, not even superheros could save 'em.

But if it wasn't for those superheros, and the value Disney saw in them, they might not have gotten the price they did.




epimetheus said:


> I can imagine a time when we can directly experience someone else's perspective. We can already induce emotions via magnetic stimulation for instance. Interesting times ahead, on that i'm sure we can agree.



Knowing what I do about the human brain, and the neurological problems I've had and have... I won't be participating in any technology that involves screwing around with my brain or mind. Especially not through electromagnetic manipulation of any kind.

...at least not until someone can demonstrate that they know EXACTLY how that organ works and functions, and how what they're doing effects it, both intentionally and unintentionally.

I won't get involved with guesswork or experimentation.

By the way... enough of this. You don't like how certain aspects of the entertainment industry works, or the how and why of it? Fine. It's no skin off my nose.

The whole purpose of this thread was to discuss a certain kind of character, and their popularity with the general public these day, not whether or not it should be the way it is.

The comics industry is currently booming, right along with 'Superhero' movies.

That's just a fact.

Will it last?  I have no idea. But it has been on the upswing for more than 20 years now. *shrug*


G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

We'll just have to disagree on this one. Personally, i'm quite glad to see the rise of perspectives other than the money first approach.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Personally, i'm quite glad to see the rise of perspectives other than the money first approach.



I'm not quite sure where you're seeing that at.

I certainly still see a lot of it around here, concerning writing.


G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I'm not quite sure where you're seeing that at.
> 
> I certainly still see a lot of it around here, concerning writing.
> 
> G.D.



China offers a different perspective. It's first about whether something fits the party line, then about money. Whether you think that good seems to depend on whether you're Chinese.

Hopefully the increasing ubiquity of the internet will lead to less centralisation. E-books have already allowed people to self-publish in vastly increasing quantities - ebooks overtook print books in terms of sales two years ago. On youtube too, high quality, low budget short films are flourishing. They only get a few hundred thousand views globally - but i'd love to reach that level with my work. Sure they're under market forces too, but it allows someone with an idea and the staying power to make a little film. Same thing with news outlets. We are just becoming less reliant on central sources for across the board.  

Maybe it's happening less in America? But i thought you guys loved your decentralisation out there - seems you are suggesting you prefer central control?


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

I don't prefer any control over another form.

I'm simply good at seeing and understanding how things work.

Doesn't mean I like it, only that I recognize it.

And when it comes to media and entertainment... it's money-based.

By the way... How long do you think YouTube would be up and running if Google wasn't making a ton of money off of it?

Remember what I said about money paying for the art, and getting it to people who appreciate it?

Also... I know quite a few folks that have YouTube accounts that are actively making a living off of 'em, or at least a good portion of their income. ( They get paid for putting up content. )( When YouTube tightened the purse strings a while back, people started opening Patreon accounts, to help make up the difference. )

Does that happen in China?


G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

For the third time, i'm not contesting that money is an important factor. Can i just make sure that has sunk in, because you keep bringing up examples that suggest i think no-one makes a living on youtube, or that market forces aren't a pivotal feature in media. 

There will always be, and always have been market forces, determining these things. I do not contest that. But there's a world of difference in thinking it is the only factor in determining the worth of something, and it being but one factor in a more more complex evaluation. Even in the entertainment industry.

In my corner of the world, people value other things as well as money. I thought most people also valued other things, but you have shown me i was wrong. It's a depressing world you paint, where we must acknowledge the Titanic as the greatest work of humanity.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> For the third time, i'm not contesting that money is an important factor. Can i just make sure that has sunk in, because you keep bringing up examples that suggest i think no-one makes a living on youtube, or that market forces aren't a pivotal feature in media.
> 
> There will always be, and always have been market forces, determining these things. I do not contest that. But there's a world of difference in thinking it is the only factor in determining the worth of something, and it being but one factor in a more more complex evaluation. Even in the entertainment industry.
> 
> In my corner of the world, people value other things as well as money. I thought most people also valued other things, but you have shown me i was wrong. It's a depressing world you paint, where we must acknowledge the Titanic as the greatest work of humanity.



And you keep going on about how art is more important than money, when the rest of the world apparently doesn't feel that way.

Do you have any idea how much of an oddity I am around these forums, simply because I'm only here to learn how to write better, technically? So that I can write down a story I put together over more than 30 years? Hm?

My interest in writing is not money-based. I have no interest in being published. 

I'm also not concerned with the 'Average Reader'.

I'm doing what I am strictly for myself, not for some market or the other.

I'm not concerned with your corner of the world, or anyone else's.

...but that doesn't mean I don't recognize what it takes for the stuff I like to see and watch be available.

...that I don't know EXACTLY what I would need to do to participate in that industry.

...or who I'd have to placate and appease to be successful in it.

Now, do YOU understand what I've been telling you? Or at least trying to?

Idealism is fine, but it's never won the first battle against reality.

I have far more time than the average person to devote to watching, listening, studying, and doing research.

And i do make an effort to know how the world works, all the way around.

...especially in regard to the things I like and have an interest in.

G.D.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 13, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> And you keep going on about how art is more important than money, when the rest of the world apparently doesn't feel that way.



What part of:



epimetheus said:


> But there's a world of difference in thinking it is the only factor in determining the worth of something, and it being but one factor in a more more complex evaluation. Even in the entertainment industry.



do you think equates to 'art is more important than money?'


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

*Comic Book characters, the 'Super Hero' genre, and their current popularity. *

In case anybody forgot what this thread was about.


G.D.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 13, 2019)

I love superhero fiction, though I believe the current run of superhero film/shows is heavy on the "powers" part, but light on the "cost".

I mean, being a real-life superhero would be hard. You'd be ostracized. You'd have moments where you just want to be _normal_. You'd have all these abilities and you'd wish like hell that you _didn't_, because being special means being _different_, and being different means being _not welcome_.

Hell, show me a superhero who attempts to commit suicide because of their powers, and I'll throw my hands in the air and say, "Finally!"

(Young _Rogue_'s portrayal in the first _X-Men_ film got close ... she hated herself for not being able to touch another person's skin.)

I suppose you could say I'd like superhero fiction to be a bit darker and sadder than it currently is. Give me less _pow! bam!_; give me more angst and suffering. Show me the superhero who, on their first attempt to save someone, swoops the person a rooftop, but breaks their spine by accident.

Make the powers gritty and hard-earned, with heavy consequences. Just because one can fly, doesn't mean life gets easy.

(For what it's worth, V.E. Schwab's _Villians_ series handles the subject quite well. She writes superheroes in a dark, morally gray way, and doesn't shy away from the consequences.)


----------



## velo (Feb 13, 2019)

Kyle R said:
			
		

> I suppose you could say I'd like superhero fiction to be a bit darker and sadder than it currently is



God help me, I can't believe I'm referencing this debacle of a movie but I do think that Bats v Sups did do a good job in the very beginning of the otherwise horrid film when Bruce Wayne was wading through the devastation caused by Superman's fight with Zod.  We saw that battle from two perspectives in two different movies and BvS shows us the human side, of having to look up into the sky and watch what are effectively gods fight in and destroy your home.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 13, 2019)

^ Agreed!


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 13, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Hell, show me a superhero who attempts to commit suicide because of their powers, and I'll throw my hands in the air and say, "Finally!"



You need to watch _Cloak and Dagger_.

Your wish will be fulfilled. :thumbr:


G.D.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 13, 2019)

I'll check it out, thanks.

I remember seeing those characters make an appearance in comic form (can't remember if their appearance was in _Spider-Man_ or _Silver Surfer_), though I've never actually read their storyline.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 13, 2019)

The comics of my childhood were a bit different, The Beano, The Dandy. I guess that we saw American comics, but Americans never saw the British ones. We had characters like The Bash Street Kids, a class where the overweight boy was called 'Fatty' and the ugly one 'Plug', no-one would dare do that nowadays, and 'Lord Snooty' and his pals, Roger the dodger and Minny the minx, they seemed much more varied and fun than superheroes. They started before my time as a supplement attached to newspapers, then became independent. 'Nice' middle class kids got given The Eagle, with informative pull-outs and good PC stories, like Dan Dare, a very British hero.

One great thing about comics is that one person, or maybe a writer and an artist, can produce them, get them printed and distribute them without all the restrictions and requirements of a major publisher. Independence is a great asset to a good storyteller. It makes me think that self published authors could do a lot worse than emulating Mark Twain when he started out and go round selling their book door to door.


----------



## Phil Istine (Feb 14, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> The comics of my childhood were a bit different, The Beano, The Dandy. I guess that we saw American comics, but Americans never saw the British ones. We had characters like The Bash Street Kids, a class where the overweight boy was called 'Fatty' and the ugly one 'Plug', no-one would dare do that nowadays, and 'Lord Snooty' and his pals, Roger the dodger and Minny the minx, they seemed much more varied and fun than superheroes. They started before my time as a supplement attached to newspapers, then became independent. 'Nice' middle class kids got given The Eagle, with informative pull-outs and good PC stories, like Dan Dare, a very British hero.



Yes, I loved those Bash Street Kids stories, and I remember one class we had where we were probably just as disruptive.  Funnily enough, I can't recall the specifics of any of those stories now.
These days I'm more like Colonel Blink the short-sighted gink.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 14, 2019)

Terry D said:


> A distinction without a difference.



Within the context the remark was made, I disagree.

I was asked if a swordsman and an old man mentor would make me think of Luke and Obi or Arthur and Merlin. I said "neither" and gave my reasons. Because a lightsaber is fictional, I wouldn't think of it when someone says "sword". Regardless of whether you consider a light saber to be a sword or not, some do and some don't, I, personally, would not think of one when asked about a sword. Nor would I think about any other fictional weapon, like the Klingon bat'leth, so it's not a bias against Star Wars.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 14, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Idealism is fine, but it's never won the first battle against reality.



Gandhi, Alexander Hamilton, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Jesus, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many others would disagree with you.


----------



## Cephus (Feb 14, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> I'll check it out, thanks.
> 
> I remember seeing those characters make an appearance in comic form (can't remember if their appearance was in _Spider-Man_ or _Silver Surfer_), though I've never actually read their storyline.



That would be Spider-Man.  Cloak & Dagger premiered in Peter Parker, Spectacular Spider-Man #64.  They've since gone on to have their own mini-series and many appearances throughout Marvel.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 14, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Do you have any idea how much of an oddity I am around these forums, simply because I'm only here to learn how to write better, technically? So that I can write down a story I put together over more than 30 years? Hm?
> 
> My interest in writing is not money-based. I have no interest in being published.
> 
> ...



Just about everybody who is here is here to 'learn how to write better, technically'. Commercial success with having people like your work is not incompatible with that. With few exceptions, it is the opposite. 

Anyway, regarding the OP: I gave my views on the concept of 'superheroes' in the other thread. I acknowledge those are just my views, however, and always try to see these things from other reader's perspectives. So with that in mind...

It's not so much that I think superheroes aren't worth exploring. It's just that I don't see anything in the existing genre that suggests that they are. Not as far as addressing the human condition. Most of them don't tackle 'real world' issues a whole lot and when they attempt to (as they increasingly do now) I don't find their take to be original. And therefore, not credible. 

I really tried to get into Batman when The Dark Knight was all the rage. I bought the comics, old and new. I tried to get into the space as I would anything I read. 

And what I got out of it was: 'Fuck This Guy'. 

What I saw was an Ayn Randian industrial tycoon who was good-looking and filthy rich, highly materialistic, successful romantically, who indulges in moonlit vigilantism. Either as a hobby or for his own personal ends depending on how you read it. 

This is not a character who exists nor can exist in our world. There's almost no instance I can think of where looking at the world through the imagined perspective of Batman (or his allies, or his adversaries for that matter) makes sense. 

People get very defensive about superheroes not being shallow or whatever. Fine, but then I need to know what are the lessons _you_ are learning from it? What does Batman (or whoever) represent that is proprietary? How is his personality more interesting than Bill Gates's or Al Gore's? Both are rich white guys 'fighting injustice' Why is Batman a more captivating character than Al Gore, besides being more violent and better dressed?

We can make the case that not all writing needs to be 'intellectual'.I won't argue on that. I agree with it. There are plenty of books I've enjoyed like that. But in those cases I will either (A) Not try to defend them as being important pieces of literature or (B) Have discovered something else about the story that provides the relevance. Maybe the setting or the event or something else. 

I could somewhat get interested in the philosophical issues of genetic mutation present in X Men and how this can relate to real world issues of bigotry or homophobia - and in fairness Marvel does dabble. But I'm not sure it really advances any original ideas on the topic nor holds the issue to its core. It's not _Philadelphia_. The idea is simple, just that 'discrimination is bad'. If that's the extent to which the superhero world wants to engage with political ideas color me underwhelmed.

Of course maybe I'm just reading the wrong stuff....but you don't get to tell me that without telling me what I should be reading.


----------

