An interesting Daily Telegraph article about superheroes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9365613/Spider-man-Are-superheroes-losing-their-edge.html

Worth a read, in my opinion.

Interesting, yes, but it says nothing tha hasn't been said before, just draws attention to the fact that superheroes are really starting to become a bit tired (or perhaps the public is becoming tired of superheroes). I liked the part about genuine, real life superheroes though. Angle Grinder Man deserves a K.B.E at the very least!

tony ingram wrote:I liked the part about genuine, real life superheroes though.

I don't, I really think that having "superheroes" in real life makes it clear that these stories only work in very rarified circumstances. Add in any realism at all (a la Watchmen) and they just look awful.

Superman, early reports indicate, “will feel alienated because of his super-abilities and struggle to find his place in life”.

This bugs me. Maybe Superman should just be over, if this is the best we can do. We have to "humanize" him for people to like him, rather than accept that he (among a cast of a kajillion) is above us, because he represents our very best, all the time, and then some.

Basically, they've just turned Superman into Spider-Man. Utterly pointless.

tony ingram wrote:Basically, they've just turned Superman into Spider-Man. Utterly pointless.

That's the problem with a lot of this. It's all faddish, whatever sold last time is what we do next time.

And it fails to take into account the fairly basic core concept behind Superman: he's not insecure, he's not conflicted, he's Superman.

Yes - he's the big blue boy scout, not Avril Lavigne.

I don't know why so many modern writers think that modern audiences don't like Superman how he was originally written. I know I do. Many a bedtime was broken in my childhood watching reruns of that old George Reeves show with my dad, and I've never "outgrown" my fondness for that depiction of him. Surely I can't be the only one.

Modernizing is all well and good, I suppose (although I prefer my Clark Kent with a fedora, and we can probably all agree that the mullet was a bad idea), but only when it comes to the outward trappings. The core of Superman, his very character, is and should REMAIN timeless. He's the guy who always does what's right. He never falters, and he never doubts. It was okay when he did that in Smallville, because we knew in the end he'd grow up and be a proper Superman. Having him continue the internal struggles he went through as a teenager even into his adulthood is just. . .well, it kind of makes me feel more mature than him. After all, I've conquered the adolescent problem of "alienation" and moved on to some real, more grown-up ones. And if we ever, in any way, feel superior to SUPERMAN, then certainly someone's doing something wrong.

Also, why do they think the movie's called "Avengers Assemble"? How odd.

It was marketed as Avengers Assemble in the UK, I think because the name 'Avengers', over here, is generally still more associated with the sixties TV show about Steed and Mrs. Peel.

Sam_Vimes wrote:He never falters, and he never doubts.

I think this idea is simply seen as arrogance. Which is a cultural issue, I think, in that people NEVER want to think someone's better than them, no matter who they are.

Sam_Vimes wrote:It was okay when he did that in Smallville, because we knew in the end he'd grow up and be a proper Superman. Having him continue the internal struggles he went through as a teenager even into his adulthood is just. . .well, it kind of makes me feel more mature than him.

I also think this is cultural. So much of culture is aimed at children (money being there, I suppose) that you have to infantilize everyone so that teens can "relate" (according to some 40-year-old exec I guess) and that is made even worse when the culture reflects that back, that people in their 20s and 30s still act like they're in high school. I don't think that should apply to Superman, but apparently it does.