American Ate My Brain II

[Attack Ships on Fire]

Attack Ships On Fire wrote:

If Sue Storm divorces Reed Richards in next month's "Fantastic Four" and Reed becomes an asshole to her does that invalidate that he was a hero to you when you were a kid?

&

Well to be fair to Tim Burton and the new "OZ", Willy Wonka and the Wizard aren't eating Charlie and Dorothy.

Well see that's the thing, were talking orders of magnitude here.

Before I dive in and comment on your main points, the comparison I was making to Tim Burton/Oz was made in reference to Four Points drawing attention to the new "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Oz" shows and asking "What is next? ET eating host family?" I think there are miles of difference between Burton's "Charlie" and watching a remake of "ET" where he eats his host family!

You can't turn on and off points of no return. Reed Richards becoming a snarky divorcee and Peter Parker eating his parents are worlds apart.

I totally agree that they are, and I respectfully disagree with you and say that you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to enjoying comics where the heroes grow up, or turn darker, and enjoying comics where they remain as pure in intent as they were when they were first created. It's happening right now with Marvel as witness in their "Ultimate Spider-Man" and regular "Spider-Man" comic books, and in What If comics like "Marvel Zombies". Marvel has embraced the idea of parallel universes so you can have a mature themed Spider-Man story and a mainstream, for-all-ages Spider-Man book. You simply pay for what you want to read. There are even comics intended for younger readers (under 7) and I bought a few myself last week. One was for "Fantastic Four" and it was written by Steve Niles, the guy that created "30 Days of Night".

That's what I meant by these superheroes are like taffy. You could have a book where Spider-Man was a racist supremacist and wouldn't save any people of color and explore the dichotomy that Spider-Man's biggest fan at the Daily Bugle was a black man (Robbie Robertson) and you could also continue to publish the Spider-Man books where Peter Parker is the well-adjusted non-racist guy we love. I'm sure Marvel would take huge heat over it and I'm not saying that there's more to a racist Spider-man story than that (this idea is off the top of my head) but it serves as an extreme example. "Marvel Zombies" is another extreme example but one that is more -- forgive me -- fleshed out as a story. Ahem.

You've made some very good points, and I recognize the need to bring some diversity into the sometimes ghetto of superhero archetypes.

Thank you and if you know any editors for Marvel or DC Comics, I grovel before thee.

But I also have to respectfully disagree that we stop seeing a hero as a person. You know people relate to Superman not only because of his abilities but also because of his Clark Kent side, and it's almost pat that every Super hero struggles with his "normalness" or "flaws". I think people are drawn to the transformative element of super heroes, because that is what they see in themselves, that in the right circumstances they to could step up and do the right thing. Reed Richards becoming a shithead could actually be endearing, because we've all been shitheads before.

I'm glad that you brought up Superman/Clark Kent as an example because I would like to use him to demonstrate that I *do* believe we, the average comic book reader, stop seeing the hero as a person.

I don't think enough attention has been given by DC Comics to the Clark persona because no one knows what to do with aside from use it as a secret identity. In the 30s through the 60s I think newspaper reporters had more of a "coolness" factor to the job, kind of like how airline pilots were treated in Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can". It also helped propel Clark and Lois to get into action; they would (or Lois would go solo) investigate some crime or story and fall into trouble that required Superman's help. He'd show up and save the day and that was the end. Aside from that use Clark Kent existed to serve as a comedic foil sometimes. That role was amplified in the Christopher Reeve films. Currently Kent doesn't do much at all in the comic book continuity; he's married to Lois (who now knows his secret) and still working at the Daily Planet. And it will never go further than that.

You said: 'You know people relate to Superman not only because of his abilities but also because of his Clark Kent side, and it's almost pat that every Super hero struggles with his "normalness" or "flaws" ' Tell me, what flaws does Clark have? If you look more at the character through the Christopher Reeve interpretation he's a bumbler. That is the only major flaw that I can find throughout 60+ years of Superman storytelling and really, it's not enough. It's been so overused that I'm pretty certain that the new team that made "Superman Returns" practically threw the bumbling Clark out the window because it's been done to death and it's not funny anymore.

Normalness? Young Clark's life is practically Norman Rockwell. He is raised to be a good, moral son by two older farmsfolk. We never see him rebel against his parents during his teenage years. We never see his parents worry as to what might happen if he acquires a disease or falls ill or gravely injures himself and they need major medical attention to save their son's life. We never see Clark become an adolescent questioning his role (or his parents' roles) in America or the world. Did he enjoy watching rich people like Lex Luthor get away with being more powerful and better able to enjoy their lives than his folks who needed to count every penny? What was it like for him wondering "If I ever kiss a girl, will I kill her with my strength?" or wondering how would he ever have sexual relations. Why didn't we see Clark go to Smallville high and learn about things like the World Wars or the Cold War or any of the thousand other wars and ask "Why should I do something about that?" In short, Clark Kent exists as a one-dimensional stereotype to the reader -- there's nothing "normal" about it -- yet somehow he's a well-adjusted married man and the perfect child. And the Normal Rockwell paintings are fantasy and we all know it; fantasy with a dollop of ice cream on top and good to look at and eat up, but fantasy none-the-less.

You know what would make a great DC Elseworlds comic? Young Clark Kent drafted into Vietnam circa 1970. You think DC editorial would dare to dream of touching that idea? The short answer is probably no.

People don't want perfect super heroes, they want normal people who can do extraordinary things in the struggle against evil.

You're right in that readers generally want to see reflections of themselves in the books, but as for "normal"? That I question. I mainly do love reading comic books for the entertainment value and escapism and I think the majority of people don't want heavy stuff in there, but I also believe that drama requires the use of "heavy" stuff like peoples' lives in danger. Why not have superheroes that wonder if they can be a father with an Earthwoman, or worried about being laid off from their jobs and affording a lifestyle for their family while also moonlighting as a superhero? Those are the real people that I know.

We can't empathize with super heroes if we stop seeing them as people, where would the entertainment be in reading about basically an adult in a world of toddlers?

I snipped your paragraph in two because I think there are two separate issues you're talking about:

Well look, every superhero (even the ones from Mars) are human beings. Lucky for the comic companies, humans are also reading/buying their books so they will identify with the emotions of their characters. But again, I put it before you: the majority of superheroes that exist in DC/Marvel today are one-dimensional. They are toddlers and so are their opponents. Sometimes a horrible element in injected in a storyline so as to make it appear more gritty (recently the Elongated Man's wife was raped and murdered in a DC Comics book, or think back to the death of Superman) but they don't live in a three-dimensional universe or act as a normal being would. I believe that today's comic book companies are missing out on increased sales and renewed enthusiasm for their heroes by not letting their characters act more like three-dimensional heroes. Ask any comic book fan of the history of comics and they will say that Marvel shook things up by having their heroes have fallibilities; Spider-Man was worried about paying the rent, or the Fantastic Four had issues similar to a dysfunctional family. However, Marvel also got stuck somewhere along the line and none of these characters have progressed even though society has. Sometimes we're lucky enough that a writer comes along and is able to freshen the hero up a little (Bendis and "Ultimate Spider-Man" comes to mind) but there's so much dust still left that needs to be blown off the countertop. Not enough to radically transform the hero but to make him/her cool and exciting again. There's so many wonderful stories waiting to be told, and to arise from the complications from, Clark Kent coming to terms with not being from this planet, but it's been pushed to the backburner by having him fight Lex Luthor for the millionth time again this month and practically forgotten about. I think that's a crying shame.

I think of the more successful super hero movies that have come out in the last 15 years, and the ones that moved beyond pure cheese realistically portrayed the superhero as vulnerable and not perfect. I see the superhero thing as more of a verb then a noun. A constant tension with normal life for this person with great abilities, that is precariously balanced with their attempt at great works for humanity.

But even with the successful movies it's a cliched version of being flawed. Let's face it: Peter Parker is never going to lose Aunt May. He is never going to be homeless for one week, his stuff dumped outside his apartment. Everything eventually comes up roses for Peter and reverts back to the way it was in "Amazing Fantasy" #15 (except now he has his wife Mary Jane). How flawed were the characters in Bryan Singer's "X-Men"? For God's sake, Halle Berry's Storm was bitching to Rogue about her mutation not being something to be cured when it's pretty obvious that it is. *You're* not the one with a power that renders it impossible to ever touch someone else's flesh, weather woman. That's done because Berry is a bigger actress and wanted meatier lines to compete against Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, but the one-dimensionality is still there. If the X-Men universe were for real then you better believe that there would be some mutations that weren't good for you as a normal human being, no matter what kind of superpower you got from it.

The "Daredevil" movie gets dumped on a lot but one thing it did better than the comics was introduce how shitty life is for Matt Murdock, that he has to lock himself inside a sensory deprivation tank at night to sleep because otherwise he would hear everything around him. That's cool, and that's a great example of growing the superhero and showing his messed up life. How does Matt invite a woman back to his place for sex when he's got that in his bedroom? Hell, how does he move that when he needs to change apartments?

The movies are getting better as the audience has grown more sophisticated over the past generation, I agree with you there, but there's room for improvement.

But I think it is a malevolent tendency to degrade super heroes to the point of no return. I could empathize with a philandering, alcoholic, tax cheating super hero, because we can learn from his struggle to do good juxtaposed against his more human frailties. And super heroes are basically nothing but extreme moral models, because in the end they do the right thing. But a super hero without a humanity, (a flesh eating zombie),has no morality, and so there is nothing to learn from them and it's just an exercise in depravity and shock to watch them rampage. No metaphor, no message, just a ride to the dark side.

And that is not always a bad thing. If you look at James Barr's "The Crow" it is nothing but a slow motion ride of torture and pain, and of waiting for a resurrected and wronged fiancee to kill those that killed him and his bride-to-be in awful fashion. The movie turned it into a Hollywood action movie complete with buddy cop, cute precocious kid and a villain that needed to have some chance to stand to win against fighting The Crow. The comic is none of that; it is a fucking horror show that tells you the edge between living a wonderful life with your loved one by your side and watching her gang raped by scum as the life seeps out of you is razor thin and you don't realize that you walk it every day. The villains have no hope in hell of escape because The Crow is more powerful and will always find them. Hollywood would have you believe that your average dumbed-down audience wouldn't want to watch that for two hours, so they turned it into a goth ride with a soundtrack and character archtypes (hero/villain/sidekick) you could pluck from any Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson film. But yet in the ultra-violence in "The Crow" comic there is humanity; the humanity of weighing the horror of a life of promise snuffed out.

I could point to Frank Miller's first "Sin City" storyline as another example of violence with a main character that is better defined as a villain but it's also a powerful and well-put together story. The movie did a much better job of translating it than the "Crow" movie did to its source material.

I think "Marvel Zombies" isn't as elevated in what it's doing as "The Crow" or "Sin City", but it's also not trash. Aside from the tactical fun of just seeing how the end of the Marvel universe would play out there is some humanity in there, such as when the heroes contemplate what they have been forced to do as zombies. It's not just sitting back and looking at panels showing Spider-Man eat Mary Jane with "MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH" sound FX and the book is over.

I have to say this has been a really interesting thread, and have enjoyed yours and others posts even when not agreeing obviously with everything.

Me too and thank you for letting me explore my convictions and ramble off of your great insights. Trust me, you're not going to find this kind of intelligent discussion on the well-traveled comic book forums out there but it's one that I've been enjoying and hope other comic book fans (and even ones that don't read the funny books) have been as well.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

What's next a remake of E.T. where he feeds on the unsuspecting families that house him?

Actually, that really was kind of the original premise of ET!!!

What is "Night Skies". And I'll take "I've Never Kissed a Girl and Live in a Basement With My Parents" for $500 Alex...oh look, a Daily Double!

I think that somewhere in the development of "E.T." Spielberg decided to just make it a uplifting family tale and dump all of the scary stuff into "Poltergeist". Further proof of the man's genius to suss out the best method of telling a mainstream tale. "Poltergeist" is a better suburban family in peril movie than I think "Night Skies" would have been.

[Brentos]

Have to say that I'm thinking that the synchronicities like 9-11 '11' sequences and fascist superheroes turning on their flock etc... as less of an elite plan, but more of a message to good people from a higher source.

[IanEye]

i had an odd RI synthesis moment last night when my Wife and i wanted to put in a movie and just chill. I suggested Magnolia because it is good and long and we'd be ready for bed when it was done. My Wife said that movie is too depressing and suggested The Big Lebowski I think as a compromise because both movies have Julianne Moore in them (and Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The movie starts with Sam Elliot narrating and asking "What is a hero really?" and then we are in the supermarket with Lebowski and he is signing a check "Sept 11, 91" and watching Bush Senior talking about Saddam.



I have to say that this RI community really has an effect on my outlook on the world around me.




"What If?"

What if we elected George W Bush in 2000?

In some reality somewhere, someone is reading a comic book that is our existence.

it is like that Heinlein novel "Number of the Beast".



Reading what some have said about multiple threads of reality in comicbook land and how you can have one series where Spiderman is a contented racist and another where it is Aunt May who gets bitten by the radioactive spider and yet another where Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive cicadia and on and on make me remember how much i used to love the Marvel "What If"s.

Jose also says that kids don't read many comics these days, that the primary audience is older. That may be true, but i know that as a kid of about seven i couldn't really figure out the "alternate universe" concept, so if i saw spiderman eating Maryjane that would really mess with my head.

The same way that getting my hands on a few underground Zap! comics as a kid and reading the erotic adventures of Fritz the Cat messed my head up far more than any exposure to a few stray Playboys.

Once I read Fritz my entire comic fantasy land changed. "Huh, does this mean that Casper the friendly Ghost is getting friendly with Wendy the Good Little Witch? Why is it a good thing when Wonder Woman ties a man up and makes him tell the truth, but it is naughty when Cat Woman ties up Robin and interrogates him?" i honestly never asked these kinds of questions as a kid before i read the works of Robert Crumb even though i had already seen magazines like Playboy or Penthouse. It took the eroticisms of actual comicbook figures to trigger these questions and emotions.



i say this not to demonize Robert Crumb or the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, only to say that i do wonder about what kids under 10 are working out when they get their hands on this material. And the argument that video games probably do far worse doesn't really work for me, there is something about the process of reading that unlock passages in the mind more than television does. Comix may be even more potent because of the synthesis of imagery and text. I remember when I was a kid of about eight my grandfather brought me back a Mad magazine from Germany. i was just psyched to have a Mad magazine and so i started to read it. i was used to reading above my age level and just cruising by words i didn't know yet and trying to figure out the plot from the words i did know. this was even easier with a comic book where you could figure things out from the pictures.
i was making headway with the German Mad magazine until my grandfather stopped me laughing and said "you can't read that, it is in another language".
He was an adult so i just accepted what he said, and stopped trying to figure it out. I often wonder how my brain would have developed if he had just kept his mouth shut, but such is life.

anyway, blah blah, sorry for rambling.

Does anybody here remember Wonder Warthog?

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Does anybody here remember Wonder Warthog?

No, but I remember Coochy Cooty.



Big fan of the Big Lebowski, btw.

[JoseFreitas]

Those comics are subversive satire? For what...5-10% of the comics-loving anti-war intellectuals who happen to be reading them? How about the other, you know, 90-95%? What are those zombie comics to THEM? If not satire, then not allegorical/metaphorical. What, then?

To the other people, these comics are NOTHING. The 5-10% of the comics loving people who happen to read them are the ENTIRE range of people who will EVER be concerned with this. The thing a lot of people here don't get (sorry for the sweeping generalization) is that in america NO ONE reads comics. Consider that the best selling comic sells c, 100,000 copies. Consider that at least 25% of this goes to readers outside the US (in Portugal alone comics shops here are bringing in 400-600 of the top selling titles, albeit it could be argued that foreign language literacy here is very high), which means that around 70-90.000 people out of 300 million read comics.... nothing. I'd be much more concerned with how super-heroes are portrayed in the movies, since at any time, a few million more people have seen those. Marvel Zombies is a nothing, as are most super-heroes comics nowadays.

In Portugal, when a new volume of Asterix gets released, it sells around 150,000 copies, out of a population of 10 million... in France, there are around 20 titles which sell in the range of 500,000 copies every year when a new volume comes out, out of a pop. of 60 million. That's a comics readership base.

In all honesty, the numbers in the US are different. The truth is that super-heroes are no longer really relevant in comics, except for the big two who depend on them for continuous revenue and are unable to escape the trap of the monthly title, and the writing is in the wall for them, publishing wise (although I believe DC can probably do the transition). Outside the geeky world of comic book stores, what readers are reading is stuff like Persepolis or Blankets or Lost Girls or stuff like that. More intelligent, more relevant to people's lives.

I have nothing against the superhero genre, in fact I'm a big lover of it. But in Europe I think we have something of a more balanced view of the entire comic book scene. For us, super-heroes is just one of the genres, and not even the more important or dominant one (I would say that fantasy in France is probably the best selling genre currently, together with contemporary and sci-fi manga; I mention France because it's the most developed country in the world in terms of comics). This entire discussion has revolved around the super-hero genre, but has ignored the fact that it is becoming the least relevant genre for a new generation of readers. It is estimated that for readers under 20, manga readers outnumber super-hero readers by 10 to 1. More and more, the comics fan of super-heroes is a 30 or 40 year old. Only this makes stuff like Marvel Zombies possible.

I went and looked at it finally, hadn't had a chance to do it. My interest in this kind of spinoff is zero, or even negative (ie actively stay away). Our local comic book shop here predictably tells me that they're ordering about a tenth of this as they do of current Marvel titles such as X-Men or New Avengers et. al. Total failure here in Portugal. Kirkman's non Marvel title sells better (The Walking Dead). I hated the comic, have to say (but OK artwork in a flashy kind a way).

Sorry if I've rambled, but this is a theme I like!

[Crow]

Speaking of manga, that's what the kids are reading these days. And manga is full of weirdness (or, as a manga-loving friend of mine delightedly called it, "wrongness") of a whole nother variety than Marvel comics. Bondage and androgyny and tentacles seem to be big, but I don't claim to understand it.

[Seamus OBlimey]

Have I ever called you a cocksucker, Seamus?

No, I don't think you have, but after what I've seen you call others I'm surprised you find the term particularly offensive.

Esp. in a discussion of flesheaters.

[orz]

The thing a lot of people here don't get (sorry for the sweeping generalization) is that in america NO ONE reads comics.

Quoted for truth. The american comics industry is pretty much dead. Anyone getting upset about "psyops" in marvel comics should stop being scared and instead start celebrating that "THEY" are wasting their time and effort putting propaganda in small time rubbish noone even reads.

[brekin]

Attack Ships on Fire wrote:

"Before I dive in and comment on your main points, the comparison I was making to..."

I'm not going to be able reply to all your meaty points because you are just to prolific for the weekend.

But in general, I recognize now that most of the superhero projects that have done well recently have been in more "live" mediums. To use the Clark Kent example, which would appear to be tapped out, the t.v. show Smallville while I wasn't a huge fan did seem to do quite well and stay true to the original premise while still bringing a fresh take on the old theme. But in the comic world, Clark Kent yeah is still dead wood creatively speaking.

So in a sense you are dead on about superheros becoming no longer people, and losing their humanity in the other direction, "ascending" above their humanity to quasi-deities in comics.

I think though like Shakespearean plays, which are buried in strata after strata of hackneyed cliches and preconceptions they can only become live again, be infused with fresh humanity, by the people who take over and make it their own. That is no doubt hard, if almost impossible sometimes, in the print medium where so much is already decided. You can only experiment so much with how say Mickey Mouse or Popeye is drawn and acts without them stopping to be Mickey or Popeye. So in this desperation, an industry with a hall of aging heroes can become reckless like a Hollywood parent and try to keep their "product" relevant by going to the further and lower depths. I think that is why the comic industry is having such a hard time, not because they can't find ways to make superheros currently relevant, but because they have ceased to believe in what most of them stood for in the first place, and they think those ideals are no longer relevant.

But in the television and movies, super heros have never had such a golden age since color television. And I think that's because in this comparative new medium, if the actor is any good, we recognize the humanity in the super hero.

I didn't get to see Daredevil yet, but it's interesting you brought that up because I was pleasantly surprised by the movie Hollywoodland. It explores a lot of what we have been discussing, and reconciles well the man and the superman conflict in reality. Ben Afflecks wooden, truncated acting actually serves him very well in this role, and it's funny because in many ways he is a throwback to the outdated superhero persona that only really exists now in a abbreviated form in the "action hero" type role.

With reality, I want a movie like Hollywoodland. The scene where the little kid is going to shoot George Reeves with a real gun because he thinks he really is a superman is priceless. But in a superhero medium with a "established" figure like superman, I don't need to see him taking a crap, or heaven forbid eating a small town in Nebraska because he gets bitten by a zombie. (Something like the Crow, I say go for it, because it's a different deal.)

The scenario of Young Clark Kent drafted into Vietnam circa 1970? Love it. I say this, do it, release it anonymously through the internet. Better yet, young Clark Kent is sent 2007 with his National Guard Smallville squadron to Baghdad. Fuck what D.C. thinks, superheros are part of the Zeitgheist now. They belong to whoever stays true to their gospel.

[judasdisney]

What's next a remake of E.T. where he feeds on the unsuspecting families that house him?

Actually, that really was kind of the original premise of ET!!!

Upcoming Spielberg film spoiler

[brekin]

I guess this advertisement for Marvel Zombies ran in Wired Magazine awhile back.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Fiction is used for catharsis over anxiety-producing current topics.

'Dr. Strangelove' helped Cold War freaked out Americans laugh at Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios laid out by Rand and Herman Kahn.

Now we can laugh about disruption of food supplies due to global warming and the very real possibility that the human species may be facing self-extinction from leaving the engine running in a closed eco-system.

ha ha ha.

[orz]

Yeah, just like your posts make light of the serious issue of propaganda in the media.

[Jeff]

[quote="brekin"]I guess this advertisement for Marvel Zombies ran in Wired Magazine awhile back.

Thanks for posting that. The ad is a close parody of Hostess fruit pie ads that used to run in Marvel and DC comics. Like this one: