If you enjoy Superheroes without Superpowers, than whats the point?
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Humans like empowerment stories and they like to see people overcome obstacles. Whether or not they use superpowers to do these things is just a detail.
Speaking of, I'm once again reminded to sing the praises of The Phantom. A comic series about a guy who appears to be an immortal superhero, but actually is simply passing the job from father to son, whenever the father gets killed. There are more stakes than usual comic book here because whoever is the current Phantom can actually die for real, and as the comic creators have a built in way to they move on to the next character, they stay dead. Now there's a franchise that needs a reboot.
Speaking of, I'm once again reminded to sing the praises of The Phantom. A comic series about a guy who appears to be an immortal superhero, but actually is simply passing the job from father to son, whenever the father gets killed. There are more stakes than usual comic book here because whoever is the current Phantom can actually die for real, and as the comic creators have a built in way to they move on to the next character, they stay dead. Now there's a franchise that needs a reboot.
I enjoy both.
I enjoy stories about people who have powers wholeheartedly choosing to do the right thing despite all the opportunity they have to lead themselves in to utter debauchery.
I enjoy stories about people without powers who break their bones abiding by their principles, knowing that they could be crushed but never relenting.
I can't speak for Batman himself RECENTLY since every comic I read involving him or his family (besides Jason of course) usually ends up being a test of my patience (Metal has been pretty fun though), which then just devolves in to me PRAYING that now that Watchmen is getting hamfisted in to the mainline DC Universe at least Rorschach finally gets to start offing SOME of the sick, twisted bastards that the Bat-Family are too absolutely pathetic to finish off.
I mean would it ACTUALLY be so bad if some stuffed a grenade in Professor Pyg's throat and tossed him in to a dumpster? No, no it would not.
(No offense to you, Jumbo)
But I digress, this'll just end up being a whole different argument that has a very blatant correct answer outside of "Then what will they write about?", because the appeal for that type of character sort of begins from there.
The appeal for characters with powers such as Superman ticks for me, not because of the powers themselves, but because of the strength of his character and how he applies in increasingly bleak scenarios.
The idea that instead of all the wrong circumstances leading to a bleak and monstrous force of nature that wants to wreak havoc on an unforgivable earth, we have a being that found itself empowered beyond imagination compared to its peers. The difference comes in the fact that this being has been shown all the good that it could protect along with the redeeming aspects of the world that are worth preserving, most especially life. And so with its overwhelming strength in tow it chooses to defend life, without trying to control it, even when the world keeps pushing that care to the brink.
The appeal for characters without powers, or at the very least really crazy ones is the idea of an average person, easily susceptible to grabbing for the closest venue of power, choosing to act as they are, their bodies be damned. No matter how much pain they need to endure, now matter how much their bones might ache for an end, they push on for the sake of everyone but themselves.
Both of these can hit close to home in regards to how their humanity comes in to play and how easy it would be for them to fall in to slumps, knowing what they'd risk for it.
In the end though it is just personal opinion, but I hope my answer contributed to the discussion.
I enjoy stories about people who have powers wholeheartedly choosing to do the right thing despite all the opportunity they have to lead themselves in to utter debauchery.
I enjoy stories about people without powers who break their bones abiding by their principles, knowing that they could be crushed but never relenting.
I can't speak for Batman himself RECENTLY since every comic I read involving him or his family (besides Jason of course) usually ends up being a test of my patience (Metal has been pretty fun though), which then just devolves in to me PRAYING that now that Watchmen is getting hamfisted in to the mainline DC Universe at least Rorschach finally gets to start offing SOME of the sick, twisted bastards that the Bat-Family are too absolutely pathetic to finish off.
I mean would it ACTUALLY be so bad if some stuffed a grenade in Professor Pyg's throat and tossed him in to a dumpster? No, no it would not.
(No offense to you, Jumbo)
But I digress, this'll just end up being a whole different argument that has a very blatant correct answer outside of "Then what will they write about?", because the appeal for that type of character sort of begins from there.
The appeal for characters with powers such as Superman ticks for me, not because of the powers themselves, but because of the strength of his character and how he applies in increasingly bleak scenarios.
The idea that instead of all the wrong circumstances leading to a bleak and monstrous force of nature that wants to wreak havoc on an unforgivable earth, we have a being that found itself empowered beyond imagination compared to its peers. The difference comes in the fact that this being has been shown all the good that it could protect along with the redeeming aspects of the world that are worth preserving, most especially life. And so with its overwhelming strength in tow it chooses to defend life, without trying to control it, even when the world keeps pushing that care to the brink.
The appeal for characters without powers, or at the very least really crazy ones is the idea of an average person, easily susceptible to grabbing for the closest venue of power, choosing to act as they are, their bodies be damned. No matter how much pain they need to endure, now matter how much their bones might ache for an end, they push on for the sake of everyone but themselves.
Both of these can hit close to home in regards to how their humanity comes in to play and how easy it would be for them to fall in to slumps, knowing what they'd risk for it.
In the end though it is just personal opinion, but I hope my answer contributed to the discussion.
Have you considered that this is an aberration to your own fantasy of wanting to immerse in something larger than life? If so, that's cool, but I don't think it's fair for you to define what that is for everyone.Samtemdo8 said:
To me, Batman is in many ways larger than life. He may not have superhuman ability, but it would be shallow to devalue a hero who lacks it. What about character, morals, or wits?
Most super heroes are hardly super when you think about it. Humans would easily dispatch a hero that can shoot fire from their hands, as we have mastered fire. A bomb would blow Wolverine's organic material apart and would not regenerate. Invisibility (disappearing in the visible light spectrum, let's say) isn't all that useful against modern technology.
This is why truly amazing heroes aren't defined by ability, but their character.
Character, Morals, Wits is pretty much synonamous with every character driven stories, you need that for all genres.Pecola said:
In a Superhero genre, the cornerstone is having superpowers, and the extreme popularity of heroes like Batman destroys the point of it.
I mean the Increadibles mostly has Superpowered characters, not a Batman like one, and they are all relatable with character, morals, and wits and such.
In an MMORPG like DC Universe Online, you have the option to have Superpowers like control over fire or flight or Super Stregnth, etc. Its more fun to play if you have powers like that than be a gadget wielding reletively non-powered hero.
See, therein lies the problem with your perspective. Because that is quite wrong. The cornerstone of the superhero genre is the adventures, personalities and ethics of costumed crime fighters. While many of these do have superpowers, it has never been a requirement for the genre. Hell, one of the earliest comic superheroes was the Phantom, and his apparent power of immortality was pure smoke and mirrors. See also the Green Arrow, the Green Hornet, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, the Shadow (originally just a master hypnotist, later installments would give him psychic powers), Hawkeye...you get the idea.Samtemdo8 said:
Now I'm not saying that you can't have your preferences for superpowers (or Clarke's Third Law), but trying to force this particular definition only makes it look like you're going "no true Scotsman" out of petty spite, so aptly paraphrased as "stop liking what I don't like".
I mean, it's also a question of what do you define as "superpower". Batman is canonically early thirties but he's essentially a genius billionaire that knows an unrealistic ammount of fighting styles, as well as being an expert criminologist, chemist, and who knows what else, as well as being in his physical prime. Yeah, he can't shoot lasers out of his eyes, but you've the same chance of being Batman as of being Superman: none.
Superheroes are escapism, and escapism comes in many forms. And if you prefer Superman and Wonder Woman and Spider Man and Green Lantern to Batman and Daredevil and Moon knight, that's fine. It's the fact that you have all this choice that makes superhero comics such a great medium (you know, when they don't suck balls anyway).
Superheroes are escapism, and escapism comes in many forms. And if you prefer Superman and Wonder Woman and Spider Man and Green Lantern to Batman and Daredevil and Moon knight, that's fine. It's the fact that you have all this choice that makes superhero comics such a great medium (you know, when they don't suck balls anyway).
Well, if we limit how we value the "superness" of heroes to pure ability, still Batman is far beyond any other human. He has obscene wealth and technology and training no one else could imagine, and no one would be as powerful as he is in using what he has.Samtemdo8 said:
Would have to imagine that any billionaire could be Batman and do what Batman does, and forget the shadow organization and people he's involved with...
This post definitely resonates with me more than any of the others so far, especially that last part. Blanket judgments are rarely every accurate.Pseudonym said:
I never really cared for superheroes. But, I tend to gravitate towards ones that don't have crazy super powers. The reason why is because I feel like I can relate to the ones without super powers better. I know that superheroes tend to start out as humans, or maybe aliens that look like humans. But a human without them that fights other super powered beings actually feels human to me. With their capabilities and what they had at their disposal, they go against the odds and succeed. Not just cause some mystical ability gave them an edge that let them face up to these other beings.
I know it's not a big difference, but something about a person with a lot of money, or does a lot of training, or something else standing above their enemies feels more real to me than "Someone got stuck in radioactive goo, and instead of dying of mutated cancer or something, they got mystical powers that let them shoot lasers out of their cocks!" or something else really stupid
I know it's not a big difference, but something about a person with a lot of money, or does a lot of training, or something else standing above their enemies feels more real to me than "Someone got stuck in radioactive goo, and instead of dying of mutated cancer or something, they got mystical powers that let them shoot lasers out of their cocks!" or something else really stupid
As if it's not possible to like both. Sorry, I dig my Punisher and Nick Fury.
Speak for yourself, I enjoyed playing a dual handgun wielding gadgeteer.
That image macro doesn't make a lick of sense, The kid looks more angry that he's losing at chess than the whole "stop liking what I don't like"Smithnikov said:
As if it's not possible to like both. Sorry, I dig my Punisher and Nick Fury.
Speak for yourself, I enjoyed playing a dual handgun wielding gadgeteer.
And in PVP I will crush your duel wielding handgun gadgeteer with my brawling, super strength, flying, firepowered superhero.
My claim wasn't that my build was superior. Only that I was, despite your claim, able to have fun with that build.Samtemdo8 said:That image macro doesn't make a lick of sense, The kid looks more angry that he's losing at chess than the whole "stop liking what I don't like"Smithnikov said:
As if it's not possible to like both. Sorry, I dig my Punisher and Nick Fury.
Speak for yourself, I enjoyed playing a dual handgun wielding gadgeteer.
And in PVP I will crush your duel wielding handgun gadgeteer with my brawling, super strength, flying, firepowered superhero.