Comments on: Superheroes bust out of comics http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126 pop culture and politics for the new outcasts Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:06:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Luana Witherbee http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126&cpage=1#comment-237102 Luana Witherbee Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:42:00 +0000 http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126#comment-237102 Thanks for writing the article. I really loved the read. Thanks for writing the article. I really loved the read.

]]> By: Graham http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126&cpage=1#comment-3379 Graham Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:58:43 +0000 http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126#comment-3379 I think Heroes has more of a discussion of heroism than perhaps you're giving it credit. You only need to look at the latest episode and see that almost all the characters used their powers for evil, and how they rationalised that, or whether that was okay. Hiro used his talents for cheating and personal gain, and the cheerleader killed the guy who attempted to rape her in an act of vengeance. You can argue that, perhaps, we're meant to think he deserved it. But I'm not sure that's the case. The thing that interests me most at the moment is this: Are all of these people heroes? They're still developing their powers and working out where they sit in terms of their lives, ethics and morality - who is to say some of them won't turn out to be evil? Since none of the characters know each other yet, that doesn't qualify as "making it personal." As for other superhero shows that follow a similar path to Buffy, the first obvious candidate is Angel. He's definitely an anti-hero, in the same sense Batman is, but the entire show - all five seasons - are a discussion of what being a hero, or champion, means. Is it fighting the good fight for the sake of the good fight, is it making a stand against evil, is it saving lives? If it's saving lives, does that mean succeeding through compromise is okay, rather than being totalitarian? Do the ends justify the means? Plus you've got the non-Angel characters, like Cordelia, Wesley, Lorne, Fred, Gunn and so on, and they frequently touch upon the personal sacrifices made in favour of acts of heroism. Especially in those first couple of seasons. The second show that springs to mind is Jake 2.0, which was Executive Produced by David Greenwalt, who co-created Angel with Joss Whedon and was EP on the first three seasons of the show. Jake 2.0 only lasted around fourteen episodes, being cancelled midway through the first season, but it's good TV that was getting better. Jake is an ordinary guy - a computer technician, a bit nerdy, but with friends and a girl he likes. Then he gets infected by nanites, who give him super speed, strength, agility, and all that jazz. Suddenly he's recruited by the CIA to fight crime, and he has to juggle his new secret job and secret abilities with his personal pursuits. It also deals with issues of morality, of heroism, and pushes Jake to see how far he'll go to get the job done. It's definitely a lighter show than Angel. More akin to Buffy season 4 than Buffy season 6, if you appreciate that comparison. But it has a darkside, and it's fun and deals with the issues you discuss above. I think Heroes has more of a discussion of heroism than perhaps you’re giving it credit. You only need to look at the latest episode and see that almost all the characters used their powers for evil, and how they rationalised that, or whether that was okay. Hiro used his talents for cheating and personal gain, and the cheerleader killed the guy who attempted to rape her in an act of vengeance. You can argue that, perhaps, we’re meant to think he deserved it. But I’m not sure that’s the case.

The thing that interests me most at the moment is this: Are all of these people heroes? They’re still developing their powers and working out where they sit in terms of their lives, ethics and morality – who is to say some of them won’t turn out to be evil? Since none of the characters know each other yet, that doesn’t qualify as “making it personal.”

As for other superhero shows that follow a similar path to Buffy, the first obvious candidate is Angel. He’s definitely an anti-hero, in the same sense Batman is, but the entire show – all five seasons – are a discussion of what being a hero, or champion, means. Is it fighting the good fight for the sake of the good fight, is it making a stand against evil, is it saving lives? If it’s saving lives, does that mean succeeding through compromise is okay, rather than being totalitarian? Do the ends justify the means?

Plus you’ve got the non-Angel characters, like Cordelia, Wesley, Lorne, Fred, Gunn and so on, and they frequently touch upon the personal sacrifices made in favour of acts of heroism. Especially in those first couple of seasons.

The second show that springs to mind is Jake 2.0, which was Executive Produced by David Greenwalt, who co-created Angel with Joss Whedon and was EP on the first three seasons of the show. Jake 2.0 only lasted around fourteen episodes, being cancelled midway through the first season, but it’s good TV that was getting better.

Jake is an ordinary guy – a computer technician, a bit nerdy, but with friends and a girl he likes. Then he gets infected by nanites, who give him super speed, strength, agility, and all that jazz. Suddenly he’s recruited by the CIA to fight crime, and he has to juggle his new secret job and secret abilities with his personal pursuits. It also deals with issues of morality, of heroism, and pushes Jake to see how far he’ll go to get the job done.

It’s definitely a lighter show than Angel. More akin to Buffy season 4 than Buffy season 6, if you appreciate that comparison. But it has a darkside, and it’s fun and deals with the issues you discuss above.

]]> By: Victor Infante http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126&cpage=1#comment-3371 Victor Infante Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:01:49 +0000 http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126#comment-3371 In a lot of ways, cinematic treatments of "super-heroes" remain less versatile than comics, as you say, Hollywood's weakness remains that it gets trapped in in the most personally-involving part of the story -- the origin. To the Hollywood mind, everything needs to tie directly back to the hero, whereas a comic book has a lot more freedom. Not saying I approve, but that's the mentality. "Buffy" really remains the gold standard for iconic treatment of a hero on TV -- she was new, fresh and ultimately, as you say, it wasn't all about her. For the most part, shows like "Heroes" and "Smallville" (although I've not watched the latter for some time) actually have some understanding of their own weaknesses, and opt for the "Before they were heroes" approach, which admittedly, plays to their strengths: Clark Kent ain't Superman yet, the first thing we learn on "Heroes" is that they're going to save the world. But FIRST ... I can understand your frustration with that, to a degree. I actually have high hopes for "Heroes" (Maybe that's because Brian Fuller of "Wonderfalls" and "Dead Like Me" is involved) because they ARE taking the time to develop the characters a bit in isolation, to get a sense of what they want ... Claire wants to not be a "freak or lab rat," Hiro wants to be a comic book hero, Isaac's shooting heroin to save the world (and really, who HASN'T done that? :) It's all still developing, but if they can make the fact they're taking some time before bringing them together pay off, to have both the characters and the viewers understand why they ultimately become heroes, then it might actually develop into something worthwhile, definitely stronger than if they became the Justice League at the end of the first episode. We ain't there yet, but it's got the potential. In a lot of ways, cinematic treatments of “super-heroes” remain less versatile than comics, as you say, Hollywood’s weakness remains that it gets trapped in in the most personally-involving part of the story — the origin. To the Hollywood mind, everything needs to tie directly back to the hero, whereas a comic book has a lot more freedom. Not saying I approve, but that’s the mentality.

“Buffy” really remains the gold standard for iconic treatment of a hero on TV — she was new, fresh and ultimately, as you say, it wasn’t all about her.

For the most part, shows like “Heroes” and “Smallville” (although I’ve not watched the latter for some time) actually have some understanding of their own weaknesses, and opt for the “Before they were heroes” approach, which admittedly, plays to their strengths: Clark Kent ain’t Superman yet, the first thing we learn on “Heroes” is that they’re going to save the world. But FIRST …

I can understand your frustration with that, to a degree. I actually have high hopes for “Heroes” (Maybe that’s because Brian Fuller of “Wonderfalls” and “Dead Like Me” is involved) because they ARE taking the time to develop the characters a bit in isolation, to get a sense of what they want … Claire wants to not be a “freak or lab rat,” Hiro wants to be a comic book hero, Isaac’s shooting heroin to save the world (and really, who HASN’T done that? :)

It’s all still developing, but if they can make the fact they’re taking some time before bringing them together pay off, to have both the characters and the viewers understand why they ultimately become heroes, then it might actually develop into something worthwhile, definitely stronger than if they became the Justice League at the end of the first episode.

We ain’t there yet, but it’s got the potential.

]]> By: Trey http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126&cpage=1#comment-3367 Trey Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:34:02 +0000 http://othermag.org/blog/?p=126#comment-3367 I am very with you on the "everything is personal" aspect of comic book movies. it drives me crazy, exhibit a being hulk vs. absorbing man in the movie. It takes away from the sense of multivalent wonder in comics, where the gamma-irradiated guy is completely separate from the ex-con who runs around trashing the city with a wrecking ball. bits of the x-men movies were the only flicks that gave me that sense of an expansive, wondrous world where you might find beings which didn't owe their existence to whatever the hero did in the first movie. exhibit b: fantastic four. anyways. great post! I am very with you on the “everything is personal” aspect of comic book movies. it drives me crazy, exhibit a being hulk vs. absorbing man in the movie. It takes away from the sense of multivalent wonder in comics, where the gamma-irradiated guy is completely separate from the ex-con who runs around trashing the city with a wrecking ball. bits of the x-men movies were the only flicks that gave me that sense of an expansive, wondrous world where you might find beings which didn’t owe their existence to whatever the hero did in the first movie. exhibit b: fantastic four. anyways. great post!

]]>