|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 19, 2015 8:46:58 GMT -5
My step-grandfather is one of those guys who believes all fantasy is for children. Not just wizards and laser guns and Superman, everything that couldn't happen in reality. Of course, that just made showing him my Batman Chronicles Vol 1 and seeing a big nostalgic smile spread over his face in spite of himself even more enjoyable. Same... my mother-in-law is like that... she'll watch spaghetti westerns and read romance novels 'till the cows come home, though, since those are 'realistic'. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jan 19, 2015 10:29:09 GMT -5
I don't think superheroes are for any particular age group. Like dupont said, I think characters who have been historically kid-friendly should continue to be so. But that doesn't mean they can't have stuff in them for adults, too. James Robinson's Starman is fine for kids to read, but it contains themes that will resonate with adults who have reached Jack Knight's age.
I started reading comics in the 70s and am under no illusion that the books then were tame or particularly child-friendly. Maybe DC's were, but I grew up on Marvel and they were often dark, and contained a lot of death, veiled nudity and often innuendo. That said, there was a limit, and I think that scenes like Black Adam obliterating the Psycho Pirate's head, while it didn't offend me per se, are not really appropriate for an all-ages book.
But getting back on point, no, there is nothing that says superheroes have to be for children.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jan 19, 2015 12:02:20 GMT -5
Cartoons tend to go in long cycles where they flip between "fun for everybody" and "extruded cartoon product with the sole purpose of selling toys to children." What happens is people who grow up watching the former, end up having to produce the latter and eventually reaching a point in their career where they can produce the former. Thats what the big boom in the early 90s was all about, guys who had grown up with awesome Looney Tunes had worked on crappy Filmation and wanted to make cartoons that were actually good. Since then it's swung back towards being crappy toy commercials again. I don't think that's true... you have Family Guy, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, the Simpsons, Archer, all of Adult Swim, etc... all for adults. There are a few comics out there made to sell toys, yes (or card games), but they are in the minority. I'd argue more of the cartoons right now are out there to promote movie properties (TMNT, Star Wars, Marvel, etc) rather than sell toys. I mean, sure, there are toys, but I don't think they're the focus like they were in the 90s... when you had GI Joe, Transformers, Gobots, Strawberry Shortcake, Care Bears... There is the subset of cartoons designed for adults sure but I'm talking about the intended demographics of children's/all ages cartoons. And cartoons today are definitely meant to sell toys. GI Joe, Transformers, etc were in the 80s. In the 90s you had Batman TAS, Animaniacs, Ren and Stimpy, etc. Toys were a focus for some of them but in a lot of cases the goal was just attaining a high viewership (so a lot of kids would see the toy commercials). Animaniacs was actually cancelled because more adults were watching it than kids, making its commercial space worthless to toy companies. Today superhero cartoons are all designed to sell toys. Movie properties don't need promotion, the movies are the biggest promotion out there. The shows are meant to sell toys and nothing more. If a show doesn't sell toys it gets cancelled. Beware the Batman, Green Lantern and Young Justice met that fate. Paul Dini talked about it on Kevin Smith's podcast, check it out: |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 19, 2015 12:03:03 GMT -5
Superheroes are, in my opinion, merely the modern American version of folk heroes that have appeared throughout history across all different cultures. Even things like super-powers or costumes are not that different from extraordinary abilities or iconic clothing worn by such heroes. Watch Chinese wuxia films starring folk heroes like Wong Fei Hung, and you see them routinely leaping through the air and defeating hordes of enemies in impossible fashion. The Arthurian legends, ancient mythology... these area all forerunners of superheroes.
Now, I'm not an expert on these things, but it's always seemed to me that folk heroes and folk tales, while having an inherent attraction for children due to their fantastic adventures, were not always so bifurcated for children and adults in the manner we are wont to do with our entertainment. I think there was always an understanding that these were stories that could be told to children, but that often had more sophisticated themes for the adults involved. Personally, I've always resonated with a quote from C.S. Lewis who once said that a children's story that is only a children's story is not a very good children's story.
As for modern comic book superheroes -- I have no problem if a publisher wants to produce adult-oriented superheroes or comic books. But I would have an issue when the same character that appears in toys, coloring books, and lunch boxes is used by the publisher to tell stories that I would not feel comfortable giving to kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 19, 2015 20:57:58 GMT -5
I'm a huge admirer of the talents of creators like Alan Moore and Howard Chaykin, but part of the reason I started this thread was because I simply don't agree with their recent comments that superheroes are primarily children's characters. I think Tolkien was on the right track with his "On Fairy Stories" where he argued that adults needed fantasy even more than children. (It's been years since I read that. I need read it again.)
I think what it usually boils down to is that certain creators have become rather dogmatic in terms of what that perceive as acceptable and valid adult material and can't let go and accept the conceits of the genre, having fun with that part us that's always going to be young at heart. (And I don't mean satire!) I think the idealism of most superhero fiction is a hard pill to swallow for many. I've heard a few creators make the statement that they don't like most superheroes because they can't conceive of someone being more moral than themselves. (I get the feeling that this is probably the root of a certain sect of fandom's disdain for Superman and Captain America.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 19, 2015 21:03:50 GMT -5
I don't think that's true... you have Family Guy, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, the Simpsons, Archer, all of Adult Swim, etc... all for adults. There are a few comics out there made to sell toys, yes (or card games), but they are in the minority. I'd argue more of the cartoons right now are out there to promote movie properties (TMNT, Star Wars, Marvel, etc) rather than sell toys. I mean, sure, there are toys, but I don't think they're the focus like they were in the 90s... when you had GI Joe, Transformers, Gobots, Strawberry Shortcake, Care Bears... There is the subset of cartoons designed for adults sure but I'm talking about the intended demographics of children's/all ages cartoons. And cartoons today are definitely meant to sell toys. GI Joe, Transformers, etc were in the 80s. In the 90s you had Batman TAS, Animaniacs, Ren and Stimpy, etc. Toys were a focus for some of them but in a lot of cases the goal was just attaining a high viewership (so a lot of kids would see the toy commercials). Animaniacs was actually cancelled because more adults were watching it than kids, making its commercial space worthless to toy companies. Today superhero cartoons are all designed to sell toys. Movie properties don't need promotion, the movies are the biggest promotion out there. The shows are meant to sell toys and nothing more. If a show doesn't sell toys it gets cancelled. Beware the Batman, Green Lantern and Young Justice met that fate. Paul Dini talked about it on Kevin Smith's podcast, check it out: I listened to that Dini interview when it first came out. It was very revealing. I've been well aware that most of my 80's childhood favorites were little more than glorified toy commercials (G.I. Joe, Thundercats, He-Man, etc.) but it still seems shortsighted to write off a show because too many adults watch it. I'd wager that a large portion of the adult fanbase of those shows were toy collectors anyway. It's up to the company and advertisers to take advantage of the strong viewer-base, regardless of the age ranges. Lazy and short sighted corporate nonsense that leads to a lot of artistically bankrupt programming. It makes me even more grateful for fantastic animated shows like BTAS and Animaniacs. Shows like that need to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 19, 2015 21:09:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I was trying to get at whether or not the concept of superheroes was inherently juvenile/kid stuff or not. I think the questions runs deeper and we have to ask whether or not fantasy of all kinds is inherently juvenile. It's interesting that characters like James Bond and Conan, simply because they feature a lot of sexiness and violence, rarely if ever get painted with the juvenile brush, when they share many traits with superheroes. Nah, I disagree with the standard proposed. I don't think fantasy is inherently juvenille - In a literary sense I believe it's a distancing technique that can be used to examine social/intellectual issues from a position of greater remove and perspective. But I think superheroes basically are - there are very, very few superhero comics that aren't blatant power fantasies, or designed to make the audience daydream about being stronger/tougher. And power fantasies tend to be aimed at the relatively powerless, and children have less power than adults. There are a small handful of superhero comics that avoid/undermine the power fantasy concept (Enigma, Eightball # 23, Watchmen,) but not many. There's a reason the majority of Batman fans are gonna be under the age of 12. Adults (generally) don't NEED the escapist idea of being bigger/stronger/more respected/freeer that is built into superheroes the way kids do. They're already big, strong, and free and most of us get some respect some of the time. Personally, I'm really interested in the tension between creators trying to express adult ideas in what is basically a children's medium, which is why the '70s Marvel bunch (Gerber, Englehart, Starlin, Kirby... gosh, even Don McGregor) are so interesting to me. And it's possible that superheroes will totally shed their kiddie power fantasy moorings and everyone will start to write knock-offs of the Death Ray. Side note: While I think superheroes are inherently juvenille, comics have convinced me that funny animals are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 20, 2015 3:27:28 GMT -5
Superheroes certainly became power fantasies, but I'd posit that they were initially a representation of an idealized form of social justice above and beyond the police and the rest of the government, which was and is often inept and corrupt. I think most kids desire power for freedom, not for subjugation, which is the noblest form in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 3:56:59 GMT -5
There are just too many confining tropes in the two largest sources of super hero fiction, and I think those two sources are inherently childish. I agree with Tolkien that adults can benefit from fantasy as well. But that doesn't mean the fantasy they choose to consume isn't for children. Unwinding with a new Smurfs HC takes a load off my mind, but the Smurfs are for kids. Inherently, and by their very nature, no matter what. I believe the same is true for Superman. That does not mean a character could be created that is not inherently juvenile, but when you place that character in the same fictional universe as Superman, with the same backdrop and under the same fiction-physics, or whatever you want to call the shared part of a shared universe, then it becomes juvenile by nature. I do not believe the same is true for self contained titles though, even though more often than not self contained titles (even from third party publishers) fall into the juvenile category as well, or are busy poking fun at it. Watchmen is a good example of a super hero comic that is not inherently juvenile. And it wasn't quite poking fun at the super hero tropes while at the same time not abandoning them. It was critiquing them without the humor. I think the ultimate goal would be to just completely abandon them and start from scratch. And this does not mean it has to be "grim and gritty" either. An action/fantasy in a contemporary setting featuring a crime fighter with extraordinary powers. But what if he didn't call himself "THE BLUE EAGLE" and wear a utility belt? What if he was just "Anonymous guy in nondescript clothing that saved some hostages with heat vision?" In comics I suspect it would not catch on, because I don't think action comics work all that well unless everything is exaggerated and larger than life. So give him big muscles and a blue bird head. But in movies and prose, I could see superhero type stories without the knee high boots and bright yellow briefs expanding the potential audience. In fact, in the popular Marvel and DC movies I often notice that stuff is toned down quite a bit. How often is Wolverine even in costume in the movies? Has he ever been in costume? The problem then becomes making a normal looking guy a valuable IP. No giant logo on the chest? This is why Cole from the Infamous games is not getting licensed and adapted for comics, movies, cartoons, coloring books, toys, ect. When he's not flying and lightning isn't shooting out of his hands he just looks like a regular urban resident  |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jan 20, 2015 4:16:18 GMT -5
I'd say popular mainstream super heroes of the type that appear on lunch boxes (do any kids still use those?) should be all ages, but all ages include kids. I enjoy a lot of adult comics, but am sometimes irked when the books I get to keep up with Superman have murder and gore and rape..
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 20, 2015 7:48:02 GMT -5
You bring up some good points, dupont. The idea of humans having superhuman powers isn't in-and-of-itself inherently juvenile, but the specific presentation of the superhero genre is. If you take Batman and remove the Bat-motif, I'd be hard pressed to see how anyone could perceive it as anything other than an adult crime-noir action drama. You could even call him The Dark Knight.
The classic costumes in many ways are an inheritance that many don't want to get rid of because of nostalgia, yet most modern creators would never design a modern character based on 1930's circus strongmen if given the option. I started noticing a trend towards a more "practical" take on costume design when I first encountered characters like Longshot and Gambit. It's rather odd, but when I see generic modern Superman or Batman clones it usually takes me out of the story or turns me off, yet I never feel this way about my favorite classic characters. Then again, I'm not a purist when it comes to costumes. I usually tend to prefer the classics, but many of the modern redesigns, like in the case of Thor, are superior in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 20, 2015 15:45:29 GMT -5
Superheroes certainly became power fantasies, but I'd posit that they were initially a representation of an idealized form of social justice above and beyond the police and the rest of the government, which was and is often inept and corrupt. I think most kids desire power for freedom, not for subjugation, which is the noblest form in my book. What are you defining as the "initial" superheroes? Because Superman was a nerdy (powerless) dweeb who was was secretly incredibly powerful and free and the girls all loved him. Their was some social justice stuff on top of that, but the major selling point of Superman was that he allowed his audience to view themselves as secretly powerful and attractive and respected. The power fantasy was, by far, the most important selling point. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 20, 2015 17:19:19 GMT -5
Superheroes certainly became power fantasies, but I'd posit that they were initially a representation of an idealized form of social justice above and beyond the police and the rest of the government, which was and is often inept and corrupt. I think most kids desire power for freedom, not for subjugation, which is the noblest form in my book. What are you defining as the "initial" superheroes? Because Superman was a nerdy (powerless) dweeb who was was secretly incredibly powerful and free and the girls all loved him. Their was some social justice stuff on top of that, but the major selling point of Superman was that he allowed his audience to view themselves as secretly powerful and attractive and respected. The power fantasy was, by far, the most important selling point. I'm not a Superman fan or reader much but I have read the theory from others that because Shuster & Siegel were of Jewish decent that Superman was a powerful answer of justice to all that the Jewish people had just endured from the Nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 20, 2015 17:34:31 GMT -5
What are you defining as the "initial" superheroes? Because Superman was a nerdy (powerless) dweeb who was was secretly incredibly powerful and free and the girls all loved him. Their was some social justice stuff on top of that, but the major selling point of Superman was that he allowed his audience to view themselves as secretly powerful and attractive and respected. The power fantasy was, by far, the most important selling point. I'm not a Superman fan or reader much but I have read the theory from others that because Shuster & Siegel were of Jewish decent that Superman was a powerful answer of justice to all that the Jewish people had just endured from the Nazis. Superman can be seen as a metaphor for Jewish persecution and assimilation in the states. But you're too early for him to be seen as a response to Hitler. While there was clearly Jewish persecution from the time that Hitler took power in '33, there was a focus on encouraging Jewish emigration until the invasion of Poland lead to three million extra Jews in the Reich. That was a bit over a year after Superman's first appearance in Action #1 and Siegel and Shuster had been working on him conceptually since 1933. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 20, 2015 17:58:39 GMT -5
Grrr ... I lost my last post ... stupid computer ..
I was going to add the conversation as far as the power fantasy side, that comics, like any entertainment can fill a void for certain people. Like there are different subjects in fiction, books, movies, TV, radio, comics, video games, etc; there are people that those things appeal to. Why are authors like Bukowski and Miller appealing to me? Because they are everything and have done everything I am not, and haven't done in my life. They fill a void of things I never did or was at a younger age, and the decisions in life that have make it a fantasy now. Because I never lived life, I never did the carnal things; women/sex, drugs, gambling ... living life, even at times if it was selfish; never NOT being a 9-5 slave; and all the while doing what they wanted to do for at least part of their life; write. They were exactly what I was raised not to be, and what I cannot be now. So I read to fill that void, to live that fantasy in my mind because I cannot and choose not to at the point in my life.
The power fantasy of comics seems to be no different. For children I think it seems so exciting and amazing because they haven't learned all the things about life and living and all the horrible consequences and details that super heroes in the real world would have, so it's simply entertaining. It fills the void of boring chores, or homework, school, etc., the few responsibilities that children have before adulthood.
But sometimes the void still needs to be filled and so adults continue to write them and adults that read them as children continue to do so. We find the niche of comics that we like, that entertain us and it keeps us content to not let all the small things in life send us to the madhouse. So the thing that would interest me, is for those (since I am not one of them) that have read comics all through their childhood and into adulthood, how they still appealed to you at all stages of life. Twenty years myself, and often, and a lot more so lately I find the stereotypical super hero formula getting old. What is it, that in my opinion, that appeals to adults, in a medium that was targeted at children? At least from the start. And why do people feel that a comic with adult events in it, but the same power fantasy theme, not still a childish concept? Does my 11 year old boy watching Dracula (1931) and being not just mildly entertained but bored make it a movie targeted at children and Coppola's an adult oriented film just because it was filled with violence and sex but from the same story? If superhero comics are a power fantasy, then what makes Superman and more child oriented at the core than Watchmen?
|
|
