|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 22:12:15 GMT -5
But they would be if cowboys dressed in bright orange with a green cape and a large letter "C" on the front of their uniform for "Captain Cowboy." So the suit trumps everything? When combined with other things yes. And I'm not sure if I mentioned action movies earlier or just meant to, but there's action movies, and then there's Chuck Norris movies. Action is an incredibly diverse genre that spans from childish to not so childish, and you will find juvenile examples of action movies. Just about anything from the 80's involving a ninja for example. You'll find others that are less so. Platoon, Saving Private Ryan. With corporate owned mainstream superhero comics with editorial interference so severe that Batman is not allowed to be seen sitting in a chair, there is only the one end of the spectrum shown. This does not mean that all super hero comics have to be juvenile, or that all of them are, just that the staggering majority of them are because that's the way the house style and editorial mandate and marketing executives want it to be. If action movies only came from two incredibly strict studios and were primarily a means to increase the value of trademarked intellectual property and everything had to be done in the same style, then depending on the tastes of those in charge, maybe every action movie would be juvenile. If whoever is making the Jason Statham movies called all the shots for example. This is not a hypothetical in super hero comics. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 22, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5
So the suit trumps everything? When combined with other things yes. And I'm not sure if I mentioned action movies earlier or just meant to, but there's action movies, and then there's Chuck Norris movies. Action is an incredibly diverse genre that spans from childish to not so childish, and you will find juvenile examples of action movies. Just about anything from the 80's involving a ninja for example. You'll find others that are less so. Platoon, Saving Private Ryan. With corporate owned mainstream superhero comics with editorial interference so severe that Batman is not allowed to be seen sitting in a chair, there is only the one end of the spectrum shown. This does not mean that all super hero comics have to be juvenile, or that all of them are, just that the staggering majority of them are because that's the way the house style and editorial mandate and marketing executives want it to be. If action movies only came from two incredibly strict studios and were primarily a means to increase the value of trademarked intellectual property and everything had to be done in the same style, then depending on the tastes of those in charge, maybe every action movie would be juvenile. If whoever is making the Jason Statham movies called all the shots for example. This is not a hypothetical in super hero comics. Have you read anything close to a staggering majority of superhero comics from DC and Marvel? Because from my experience, depending on the era, it's probably close to 50/50. Now, in the atom age and with DC in the silver ages and through most of the 90's that ratio certainly skews more towards juvenile but in the golden age and in the 70's, 80's and in the last 15 years there was a variety of tones in use and when you measure that variety against the eras where it was predominately juvenile it does even out on the historical level. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 23:09:36 GMT -5
Have you read anything close to a staggering majority of superhero comics from DC and Marvel? No. But I've read a good chunk of the A list titles from the 80's-90's as well as Bronze and Silver reprints, and I can safely say that 100% of all mainstream super hero comics I have ever read have been juvenile. I've also read reviews, seen cover images, and read story synopsis of several, as well as looked at the corporate method of both companies, and it's plain to see at just a glance that it's a juvenile genre, inherently. I have NEVER seen a Batman or Superman or Spiderman or Wolverine comic that wasn't juvenile, and I wonder how it could possibly even be done. I mean, there would have to be dialogue. They might go a whole 22 pages without gritting their teeth and getting into a fight. They might put on pants. Are He-Man cartoons inherently juvenile? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 22, 2015 23:18:37 GMT -5
Have you read anything close to a staggering majority of superhero comics from DC and Marvel? No. But I've read a good chunk of the A list titles from the 80's-90's as well as Bronze and Silver reprints, and I can safely say that 100% of all mainstream super hero comics I have ever read have been juvenile. I've also read reviews, seen cover images, and read story synopsis of several, as well as looked at the corporate method of both companies, and it's plain to see at just a glance that it's a juvenile genre, inherently. I have NEVER seen a Batman or Superman or Spiderman or Wolverine comic that wasn't juvenile, and I wonder how it could possibly even be done. I mean, there would have to be dialogue. T hey might go a whole 22 pages without gritting their teeth and getting into a fight. They might put on pants.Are He-Man cartoons inherently juvenile? That just doesn't mirror my experience at all, and judging by the sentence in bold it seems clear why that is; you just don't like them and because your view is colored that way you are blind to mainstream titles that do hold meaning beyond the action and the costumes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 0:18:04 GMT -5
Me not liking them and them being juvenile have nothing to do with one another. I do like juvenile things. Plenty of them. I probably enjoy more lowbrow entertainment than high brow. In fact, there is no probably about it. I do. And I don't have a problem accepting that.
Also, I don't like pro wrestling. Does that make me wrong to say it's juvenile?
Regardless of what there is beyond the action and the costumes, the entire point of the comics is action and costumes. And cheesecake. And variant covers, some of which are BLANK. The archetecture that anything beyond capes and briefs and muscles is still built on the foundation of capes and briefs and muscles. And yes, it is juvenile. So much so that it has to be toned down for the movies. The costumes are different, the actors have more realistic bodies. The camera angles are less fanservice oriented and more cinematic. There is a science behind it, to make it more palatable to people who haven't been conditioned to either like those things or not notice them over the course of several decades.
South Park these days often has a preachy message and tackles touchy social issues and politics and current events. It's still a fart joke cartoon, and it's always going to be juvenile. There is no way to fix that without making it something other than South Park.
This applies to Spiderman as well. But with power fantasy instead of fart joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 23, 2015 10:04:55 GMT -5
For me, the highest form of genre fiction--superhero, western, crime, horror, even funny animal--are those that manage to work on both levels simultaneoulsy: there's a solid story that's compelling and entertaining and also tackles "real life" problems, emotions, and issues, even if in a disguised way. Basically, is there subtext?
Certainly superhero stories can do both when they're firing on all cylinders. But too often people talk like it must be one or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramblingman on Mar 28, 2015 19:03:40 GMT -5
And I don't think that your generalization fits every Superman or Captain America comic either. I disagree. That's the very nature of the characters. And it's not a single thing that makes something juvenile, but a collection of things. Checking boxes and when you hit a certain point, there you are. Trademarked logo on chest? Goofy animal ears on your spandex costume? Giant muscles? Good guys in red, white, and blue, bad guys with skull or goblin faces? Bad guys having zero motivation for doing bad things beyond screwing with the hero? Good guy having zero motivation for doing good things beyond having a special ability? Can't go 22 pages without getting in a knockdown dragout brawl that destroys the city but leaves both you and your opponent completely unharmed? I can go on and on. There are so many. Not every single Marvel comic will feature all of them, but there isn't a mainstream superhero comic out there that doesn't feature a good chunk of them. There is a formula that both companies have built up from since the beginning. And while the finishing touches, like house style, number of pages, lengths of stories, and level of sex and gore may have changed, the architecture is still there.
I would generally be hesitant to post within a two month old thread, but after wandering into here after a google search, in which I queried as to why superhero stories are perceived by many as inherently juvenile, I felt compelled to respond here. I mean, the typical argument that I came across on that front is that the powers and abilities marked the genre as silly. But that seems absurd. I mean, do people really consume action movies such as those from the Bourne Trilogy or Rambo under the belief that any of the feats performed are at all feasible or realistic?
That list, however, makes me think that much of the perception of the genre is owed to level of misunderstanding in regard to its content that I, as someone who has consumed as much of it as I have, have become apt to take for granted as being common knowledge.
First of all, before getting into any of the specific items on that list, I should go ahead and point out that I find the idea of disregarding any of this stuff due to the absurdity of the outfits to be a tad silly in itself. The colorful skintight suits are modeled after those of circus strongmen (and also resemble those worn by many athletes for the same purpose of displaying their physique), so if anything I find the most off-putting element of a typical superhero comic costume to be, if anything the cape (You can get away with wearing a skintight outfit in the 21st centy, but you'll find very few occasions during which you can get away with wearing a cape), which in itself would not be out of place in an work of fiction set in, for example, the Medieval Period or in any setting that resembles it, such as that of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. What's acceptable and unacceptable in the world of fashion changes from half decade to half decade, and when you consume a piece of fiction, you accept the fact that the characters within that work, from a different time period or within a fictional universe, are going to wear clothing that would appear out of place in whichever time period in which you're consuming it. This shouldn't really destroy your ability to take the work seriously, as this is par the course. Now:
-Trademarked logo on chest? Emblems or sigils on clothing aren't silly at all. The average person owns multiple pieces of clothing with "trademarked logos" embroidered upon them, whether it is a superhero shirt, a logo signifying their affiliation with an organization or the affection for a sports team, or simply a corporate logo used to further advertise the creator of said clothing article, such as those produced by companies such as Abercrombie. Anything outside of a plain tee would basically qualify as this.
-Goofy animal ears on your spandex costume? Outside of Batman and Wolverine, who never carries this over in the film adaptations, I rarely ever see this.
-giant muscles Expected of any highly active or athletic individual or person with a physically demanding occupation. Superheroes, much like boxers, smiths, and road workers, are both. Many of them are also martial artists.
-Good guys in red, white, and blue, bad guys with skull or goblin faces? Only characters who really come to mind here are the Red Skull and Green Goblin. Other than that, villains appear about as likely to be as attractive as heroes. Lex Luthor is generally depicted as charismatic and highly desirable. No idea on what the faux pas is on wearing primary colors, but heroes who prefer Secondary and Tertiary colors, such as black, are common as well.
-Bad guys having zero motivation for doing bad things beyond screwing with the hero? Now this is just plain untrue. Characters such as Magneto, Black Adam, Sinestro, Red Hood, The Punisher, and Mr. Freeze are blatant anti-villains who often fall into a morally grey territory allowing them to be interpreted as anti-heroes.
-Good guy having zero motivation for doing good things beyond having a special ability Superhero stories, such as those concerning Spider-Man and Batman, actually have a tendency to naval gaze more often at the motivation behind the involved character more intently than most police procedurals are apt to. Hence the large amount of origin stories being adapted onto film.
-Can't go 22 pages without getting in a knockdown dragout brawl that destroys the city but leaves both you and your opponent completely unharmed And other action sub-categories, such as Westerns, fantasy and medieval epics, military, and spy fiction are able to go for a similar amount of time without any actual action (last portion of your statement is completely untrue; characters are harmed, bleed, and even die in superhero fiction all the time)? Nonetheless, superhero stories such as Superman Peace On Earth (Superman's failed attempt to end world hunger), Marvels, Silver Surfer Requiem (the Silver Surfer's attempt to cope with his impending death), All Star Superman, The Killing Joke, and Daredevil Born Again do just that. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 28, 2015 20:46:09 GMT -5
That's a heck of a first post.. and very well said. Welcome and bravo!
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Mar 29, 2015 16:23:23 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. I'm fascinated by people who seem to be completely devoid of imagination. My own grandfather would fit that bill. He dislikes fiction of all kinds, even reality based fiction, and seems to only enjoy musical variety shows and the news. I suppose if you grow up hard, and poor, you don't have much of an opportunity to develop an imagination. Then again, I've met plenty of people around my age who had the same exposure to comics, books, movies, etc., and never developed an imagination or an interest in fantasy. I can certainly see how an obsession with fantasy can stunt a person, but to not appreciate it or understand it at all is just...sad. For what it's worth, Stephen King provided a new take on Coleridge's "suspension of disbelief." He said (I paraphrase) that the ability to suspend disbelief was almost like a muscle: those who can't do it haven't built up the muscles capable of doing it, rather than that they are more grounded in "reality." |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Mar 29, 2015 16:57:55 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that all literature functions strictly as escapism, though. Telling stories and listening to (or reading, viewing, etc) stories seems to be pretty fundamental to human nature, and we use stories to communicate in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons, including but not limited to pure escapism from the stresses and hardships of the real world. Some stories embody deeply felt feelings or perceptions about that real world, for example - folk stories and myths often work that way. A lot of the better science fiction can be described as novels of ideas, rather than escapism - though they surely hope to present those ideas in an interesting or entertaining way. "Escapism" is an important concept here, because on occasion (not necessarily on this thread) people sometimes conflate it with all things juvenile, which is not the case. On my blog I've frequently contrasted two modes of literature which can be constructed for both juvenile and adult audiences. There's "escapism," which I consider "the literaure of play," and "realism," which is "the literature of work." Playing games means accepting a prescribed set of rules and limitations that aren't based on real-world means and ends, even if they might be loosely patterned after them (RISK, STRATEGO). But there's no real-world benefit from playing games. In a way, the player accept the game's fictional limits as a means of escaping the real world of limitations like inconvenient death, romantic loss, etc. Work is all about means and ends, and the literature of work, "realism," is all about getting its audience to come to terms with mortal limitations. We may think of juvenile works as being only about escapism. But if someone writes a book for kids, aimed at coming to terms with the loss of loved ones, then that's both a "realist" work and a juvenile work. Not that one has to be only within a naturalistic world in order to be "realistic." Lewis's Narnia books are aimed at kids, but their intent is to give the young audience a simplified grounding in the author's ideas of Christian philosophy. That's aimed at achieving a particular end by a particular means, and so I consider Narnia "realistic" in its thematic sense, even though it's a fantasy-- just as I do WATCHMEN and a handful of other "mature superheroes." |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 29, 2015 18:24:50 GMT -5
That's a heck of a first post.. and very well said. Welcome and bravo! He's tryin' to make a living and doing the best he can |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 30, 2015 18:20:47 GMT -5
That's a heck of a first post.. and very well said. Welcome and bravo! He's tryin' to make a living and doing the best he can And when it comes to leaving I hope you'll understand that he was born a ramblin' man. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 30, 2015 19:30:25 GMT -5
I'm generally in the camp of comic fans who believe that superheroes should generally be targeted at kids (i.e. eschewing graphic violence, language, or sex scenes). I'm not opposed to more mature superhero comics being done, as long as they can still be appreciated by kids as well (Claremont on X-Men, Wolfman on Teen Titans, Levitz on LoSH, etc.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2015 19:40:49 GMT -5
Superheroes have become cultural mythology by this point, which is exactly why the constant extension of the copyrights on characters like Batman and Superman is just plain wrong. These characters belong to the people at this point and, as such, should be kept generally all-ages friendly. I think its perfectly fine to have a dark graphic novel or limited series every now and then, but when kids get the impression that superheroes aren't for them anymore, I think the party's over. We've alienated the next generation of readers and, worse than that, denied our inner children as well. As much as I'll always appreciate a deep, well plotted and characterized Superman story, I'd be fooling myself to pretend what first appealed to me about the character wasn't wearing his licensed pajamas when I was three and running around the house with my arms extended forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 30, 2015 19:59:54 GMT -5
Superheroes have become cultural mythology by this point, which is exactly why the constant extension of the copyrights on characters like Batman and Superman is just plain wrong. These characters belong to the people at this point and, as such, should be kept generally all-ages friendly. I think its perfectly fine to have a dark graphic novel or limited series every now and then, but when kids get the impression that superheroes aren't for them anymore, I think the party's over. We've alienated the next generation of readers and, worse than that, denied our inner children as well. As much as I'll always appreciate a deep, well plotted and characterized Superman story, I'd be fooling myself to pretend what first appealed to me about the character wasn't wearing his licensed pajamas when I was three and running around the house with my arms extended forward. I think the characters entering the public domain is a two way street. On one hand, we can get more varied takes on the characters that can break from the traditional standards set by the Big 2. On the other hand, we may experience a glut of material that betrays the original intents of the creators of these characters simply by writers who don't get the characters or actively seek to make them fit their own perceptions of what "modernizing" them is. |
|
