Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? And Why ?

[Noria]

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? Why it is so? Help me with this thing I need it to write my essey about antiheroes :wink: please!:biggrin:

[mdg1]

I would say, instead, that fans have been convinced by years of storytelling that idealistic superheroes are either naive, secretly evil, or only worthy of parody.

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

Marvel put the term" anti-hero" on the map with the surging popularity of the Punisher in the early 90s. That character went on to carry multiple titles at once and appear in many issues of comics, some of which he never needed to be in. But still, his methods of dispatching criminals had become very popular to comics readers, DC and Marvel fans alike. However, in the stories themselves, he is not considered a hero.

He isn't nearly as popular now, and none of his theatrical movies did very well financially. So the anti hero might not be the most preferential thing in the
21st century.

[CyberHubbs]

Anti-heroes offered a different take compared to the more traditional hero. There's always been an anti-hero of some sort, the guy willing to cross a line that idealistic heroes weren't. They capture your attention for a while (or longer), but their shtick does tend to get stale when you keep having to one-up the last thing they did to set them apart from the pack.

[Expletive Deleted]

Why it is so?Personal tastes differ.

[celticguy]

I would say there is room for both. Pletny of people like straight arrows like Steve Rogers and people who are more in the anti hero mold like punisher or wolverine.

The Anti hero has been around for a while the Death Wish and Dirty Harry movies from 30 years ago being a more mainstream example. The movie Taken is a decent more recent example. In detective fiction many characters by people like Lehane or Parker would be bad guys dong good work for various motivations.

[Danvh3]

I happen to enjoy the niche genre of "Morons Who Fight Crime" which means I buy Booster Gold, Incredible Hercules, and why I will buy the new JL : Generation Lost series as well as Guy Gardner : Emerald Warrior.

There's just not enough dumb bastards triumphing over evil.

[TwinPistols]

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes?

Not really, but I think they serve an important role. Cookie-cutter goody two shoes Superheroes get boring after a while. If they're all the same, and have the same views, how are they supposed to react to each other in interesting ways? Anti-heroes provide a conflict, and often challenge readers and other characters with moral questions. So yeah, they can be interesting.

But along those same lines, if there are too many of them, it can get just as boring (and I think we saw some of that during the 90's). If everybody is a cigar chomping, beer-swilling gun totin' assasin, you sit and scratch your head, wondering where the good guys are.

So, IMHO you need a good balance of the two. You should have mainly heroes, but you should also have a few anti-heroes here or there to shake things up a bit.

[Kieran_Frost]

I much prefer anti-heroes to regular heroes. The simple reason being: there are more possible avenues for stories/story conclucisions. Anti-heroes can do everything heroes do AND everything villains do. An anti-hero can sacrifice themselves to save one child in one arc, having just murderer two innocents in a previous arc for the "greater good."

The example I always use is Steve Rogers in House of M. He flat out said the other heroes like Emma and Wolverine weren't even allowed to contemplate killing Wanda "because it just isn't going to happen." That shows an absurd nativity/idiocy that I don't have any interest in reading about. Wanda could have possibly been a threat to all reality, to every person on the planet. And to say "we aren't even going to talk about killing her" is, in my mind, a decision so steeped in stupidity that it's off-putting to say the least. He was putting "morals" ahead of all life in the universe. Stupid. Now Emma Frost, Karla, Osborn and others. They have risked their lives for a greater good, and done great wrongs too. That's more interesting.

But ultimately it's down to taste, as others have said. People quite obviously like Steve Rogers and Peter Parker. "Goodie goodies" get love to, I guess. :wink:

[The Black Guardian]

The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Psychology determines the antihero. Fashion determines the superhero (even the powers/abilities are just bling).

[turtlefood]

Because Superheroes are playing a game based on the writers never wanting anything to change. Hero catches villain, villain escapes, hero catches villain, villain escapes. For 20 years. Except now the villains go on mass murdering sprees or are serial rapists, yet the GAME is still played the same. I can't relate to the game the writers like to play, it makes no sense and it's quite embarrassing that superheroes are written this way.

[Danvh3]

The example I always use is Steve Rogers in House of M. He flat out said the other heroes like Emma and Wolverine weren't even allowed to contemplate killing Wanda "because it just isn't going to happen." That shows an absurd nativity/idiocy that I don't have any interest in reading about. Wanda could have possibly been a threat to all reality, to every person on the planet. And to say "we aren't even going to talk about killing her" is, in my mind, a decision so steeped in stupidity that it's off-putting to say the least. He was putting "morals" ahead of all life in the universe. Stupid. Now Emma Frost, Karla, Osborn and others. They have risked their lives for a greater good, and done great wrongs too. That's more interesting.


So... if we were going to break this down into a more real world setting and say, you had a friend you'd been close to for years, that had a downward spiral and possibly would wind up hurting people, you would just drop that person and walk away?

You wouldn't try to help that person?

It didn't seem to me that Steve was putting morals above all life, but he was putting friendship and hope above, and that's not a bad thing.

The idea of "the greater good" doesn't work in a context with Norman Osborne, Karla Sofen and to an extent, Emma Frost. The only greater good to characters like that is self gain. What can they get out of doing one thing over the other? That's not heroic. That's selfishness.

[o1pickleboy]

For me story's get interesting with imperfections. Always do right boy scouts bore me because there is no mistakes or gray.

My personal taste leans toward the real world plus superpowers

[StoneGold]

They never would have stood for that in the good old days.

http://www.botar.us/foto/theshadow.jpg

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/224/spider36sept1936.gif

[Kieran_Frost]

So... if we were going to break this down into a more real world setting and say, you had a friend you'd been close to for years, that had a downward spiral and possibly would wind up hurting people, you would just drop that person and walk away?

You wouldn't try to help that person?
I think a better "real world" analogy would be if my mentally troubled friend was swinging a samurai sword around a children's day care. Would I let police take him down. Hell yes! Wouldn't you? Remember, by this point in the discussion Wanda had already killed people, destroyed the Avengers mansion and caused a massive alien invasion. So in the "real world" analogy, my friend needs to already have blood on his hands for me to be making this decision.

If he's swinging a samurai sword in a day-care the last thing I want is Steve Rogers coming along saying "let's talk this through". No, no. Time for talk is over. My friend needs to be stopped. NOW!


It didn't seem to me that Steve was putting morals above all life, but he was putting friendship and hope above, and that's not a bad thing.
Yes he did. He flat out said were not discussing it. He DID put morals above everything else. That's not a man I want making life or death decisions, since he doesn't have the balls to make the latter.


The idea of "the greater good" doesn't work in a context with Norman Osborne, Karla Sofen and to an extent, Emma Frost. The only greater good to characters like that is self gain. What can they get out of doing one thing over the other? That's not heroic. That's selfishness.
If their saving innocents from death, I really couldn't care less "why" their there, just that their doing it. If that makes sense? If you're being rescued by a fireman, do you stop and ask him if he loves his job and would he be doing this if the pay was not as good? I think not.
:smile:

[Holy Spirit]

The example I always use is Steve Rogers in House of M. He flat out said the other heroes like Emma and Wolverine weren't even allowed to contemplate killing Wanda "because it just isn't going to happen." That shows an absurd nativity/idiocy that I don't have any interest in reading about. Wanda could have possibly been a threat to all reality, to every person on the planet. And to say "we aren't even going to talk about killing her" is, in my mind, a decision so steeped in stupidity that it's off-putting to say the least. He was putting "morals" ahead of all life in the universe. Stupid. Now Emma Frost, Karla, Osborn and others. They have risked their lives for a greater good, and done great wrongs too. That's more interesting.

But ultimately it's down to taste, as others have said. People quite obviously like Steve Rogers and Peter Parker. "Goodie goodies" get love to, I guess. :wink:

So... if we were going to break this down into a more real world setting and say, you had a friend you'd been close to for years, that had a downward spiral and possibly would wind up hurting people, you would just drop that person and walk away?

You wouldn't try to help that person?

It didn't seem to me that Steve was putting morals above all life, but he was putting friendship and hope above, and that's not a bad thing.

The idea of "the greater good" doesn't work in a context with Norman Osborne, Karla Sofen and to an extent, Emma Frost. The only greater good to characters like that is self gain. What can they get out of doing one thing over the other? That's not heroic. That's selfishness.
Or we put a mutant control collar on her and call it a day.

See, everybody wins! :biggrin:

[jessecuster3]

Marvel put the term" anti-hero" on the map with the surging popularity of the Punisher in the early 90s. That character went on to carry multiple titles at once and appear in many issues of comics, some of which he never needed to be in. But still, his methods of dispatching criminals had become very popular to comics readers, DC and Marvel fans alike. However, in the stories themselves, he is not considered a hero.

He isn't nearly as popular now, and none of his theatrical movies did very well financially. So the anti hero might not be the most preferential thing in the
21st century.


What? Did you forget Garth Ennis' run on Punisher?

[The Black Guardian]

What? Did you forget Garth Ennis' run on Punisher?
Now means now?

[Aaron Kashtan]

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? Why it is so? Help me with this thing I need it to write my essey about antiheroes :wink: please!:biggrin:

I hope your essay is written with better grammar and spelling than this post was, or you're going to give your instructor a headache.

[mikekerr3]

I would say, instead, that fans have been convinced by years of storytelling that idealistic superheroes are either naive, secretly evil, or only worthy of parody.

I think that sums it up very well.

[Noria]

I hope your essay is written with better grammar and spelling than this post was, or you're going to give your instructor a headache.

I'm really grateful for your help. I'll also try to improve my spelling and grammar. I'm rather beginner if we talk of using English so please forgive me my mistakes:smile: I've got whole week for that essay so if someone wants add something- go on don't be shy:biggrin: One more time thx!

[howyadoin]

So... if we were going to break this down into a more real world setting and say, you had a friend you'd been close to for years, that had a downward spiral and possibly would wind up hurting people, you would just drop that person and walk away?

You wouldn't try to help that person?If they'd murdered thousands of people, then yes, I think I'd walk away.

[Tadhg]

If they'd murdered thousands of people, then yes, I think I'd walk away.

It depends. Did I personally like any of these thousands of people?

[jessecuster3]

Now means now?

Now means more recent than the '90s.

[Fenris]

What people often call an "antihero" in comics would have simply been called a hero through a lot of literature. The Comics Code imposed a very strict moral code on comics, and the writers made the best of this by interpreting heroism in that strict and juvenile light.

So, for example, most comic heroes absolutely won't kill under any circumstances; but this is an ideal shared by almost no heroes anywhere else. Most heroes are very ready killers, as Hazlitt said of Henry V:

He was a hero, that is, he was ready to sacrifice his own life for the pleasure of destroying thousands of other lives... How then do we like him? We like him in the play. There he is a very amiable monster, a very splendid pageant.

Now that the Comics Code is history, it's pretty much inevitable that writers should start flexing their muscles past it, and getting back to heroism as it was more traditionally constructed. Which isn't any guarantee of good writing, of course.


õ
But then, nothing is!

[J. Robb]

I would say, instead, that fans have been convinced by years of storytelling that idealistic superheroes are either naive, secretly evil, or only worthy of parody.
Huge generalization here, but anti-heroes tend to appeal more to teens.

Rebelling against Superman is like rebelling against your parents, eventually you grow up and realize your parents were right.

[Agent Helix]

My parents didn't have heat vision, though.

[Pól Rua]

Because the publishers of superhero comics have been selling the idea that 'realism' is quality.
And by realism, they mean the knee-jerk adolescent cynicism of a fourteen year old who's just been exposed to Nietzchean philosophy for the first time.
Basically, the publishers of superhero comics are a bunch of nihilistic teenagers who've locked themselves in their room, painted all the windows black and won't stop listening to that same damn Nine Inch Nails album over and over and over again.
That this kind of 'realism' should even be a concern in stories where strongmen in brightly coloured tights fight mad scientists and monsters with their magic powers is ludicrous.

I think Superman put it best.
"You were a disaster waiting to happen... "Superheroes" who don't mind killing to achieve their ends can be dangerous in the wrong hands... Don't you realize death is no object to most of the enemies we deal with?
"...These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."*

* - from 'JLA Classified' #3

[Kees_L]

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? Why it is so? Help me with this thing I need it to write my essey about antiheroes :wink: please!:biggrin:

Well, for heroes I'm tempted to make a sports-analogy:

great sportsperformers or winners / winning teams can have great appeal.
But if they get to be over-confident or plain annoyingly bloated, then interest might shift.

Heroes need to be identifiable in some way, best in a unique way.
Anti-heroes can do this as well as heroes. And both need shortcomings as well as their strong suits.
They should never be or become perfect or win like it's a given. Such will eventually have to become annoying or plain boring.

[howyadoin]

It depends. Did I personally like any of these thousands of people?Hmmm. This is a more complex issue than I originally anticipated. What if they were all members of boy bands, for instance?

[Danvh3]

I think a better "real world" analogy would be if my mentally troubled friend was swinging a samurai sword around a children's day care. Would I let police take him down. Hell yes! Wouldn't you? Remember, by this point in the discussion Wanda had already killed people, destroyed the Avengers mansion and caused a massive alien invasion. So in the "real world" analogy, my friend needs to already have blood on his hands for me to be making this decision.

If he's swinging a samurai sword in a day-care the last thing I want is Steve Rogers coming along saying "let's talk this through". No, no. Time for talk is over. My friend needs to be stopped. NOW!


Yes he did. He flat out said were not discussing it. He DID put morals above everything else. That's not a man I want making life or death decisions, since he doesn't have the balls to make the latter.


If their saving innocents from death, I really couldn't care less "why" their there, just that their doing it. If that makes sense? If you're being rescued by a fireman, do you stop and ask him if he loves his job and would he be doing this if the pay was not as good? I think not.
:smile:

Hey, you got a point. What do I know, I don't read Bendis, and what I have read, has been expunged from my memory. I forgot that she'd already killed.

[K'Nort]

Using the popular definition of anti-hero (which, as Fenris says, is incorrect), the stories are less predictable. You know the hero will triumph. Sometimes the anti-hero loses. So it's much more worth actually reading to find out.

[Adam C]

What people often call an "antihero" in comics would have simply been called a hero through a lot of literature. The Comics Code imposed a very strict moral code on comics, and the writers made the best of this by interpreting heroism in that strict and juvenile light.

Indeed. In my adult years I've been puzzled by the designation of Wolverine as an 'anti-hero'(!) when outside of comics a traditional anti-hero would either be a much more obviously flawed protagonist (like say...Homer Simpson) or even a borderline villain like Woland from The Master and the Margarita (who's really Satan, but we laugh at his machinations and root for him because it's Soviet Russia). The Irredeemable Ant-Man or John Constantine would be a more accurate example of an anti-hero, but they aren't exactly as popular as Batman are they?

[howyadoin]

The Irredeemable Ant-Man or John Constantine would be a more accurate example of an anti-hero, but they aren't exactly as popular as Batman are they?True. Not even when Constantine is an American hee-ro with the Holy Shotgun of Jesus at his side.

[Donald M.]

True. Not even when Constantine is an American hee-ro with the Holy Shotgun of Jesus at his side.

I dunno, a magic shotgun isn't so terrible an idea, but they totally stole it from Johnny Blaze.

[howyadoin]

I dunno, a magic shotgun isn't so terrible an idea, but they totally stole it from Johnny Blaze.Or the Saint of Killers, or Hitman.

[TwinPistols]

True. Not even when Constantine is an American hee-ro with the Holy Shotgun of Jesus at his side.

Such is the product when a comic book property is twisted, altered, screwed with, manipulated, and opened "to interpretation" to make money....

...and I heard they were making a sequel.

You know, Constantine here is actually a perfect character to be brought up in this thread. He is the perfect version of an anti-hero. A "pagan" wizard who ruins as many lives as he saves, loves revenge and uses magic like a drug.

-But that wasn't heroic enough. So they made him an unofficial Exorcist slash Neo-Blade. (And a Yank)

But hey, what do I know? It worked. :smile:

[Paradox]

Noria asks a silly question:

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes?

No. "The fans" do not have a single preference, but rather a multitude of various points of view. You really can't say "the fans" prefer anything.

[howyadoin]

No. "The fans" do not have a single preference, but rather a multitude of various points of view. You really can't say "the fans" prefer anything.I think you can if you use the sarcastic quotation marks.

[Alexander the immortal]

No. "The fans" do not have a single preference, but rather a multitude of various points of view. You really can't say "the fans" prefer anything.

of course you can. You mean most fans prefer .

[Paradox]

lou-bert vs. q-bert has me go all Handy on him:

Marvel put the term" anti-hero" on the map with the surging popularity of the Punisher in the early 90s.

The term anti-hero has been "on the map" for many centuries. Please read a book.

[StoneGold]

Or the Saint of Killers, or Hitman.

Blaze had it first.

[Pól Rua]

of course you can. You mean most fans prefer .

Or "the loudest, whiniest, most annoying and emotionally stunted fans".

[Paradox]

Alexander the immortal tries to pare it down:

of course you can. You mean most fans prefer .

Not really. The question is overly simplistic and dichotomous. It would be my suspicion that there's a few on the fringes that care one way or the other, and the vast middle ground where it's far less of a factor than, say, the writing or the art.

[Alexander the immortal]

Not really. The question is overly simplistic and dichotomous. It would be my suspicion that there's a few on the fringes that care one way or the other, and the vast middle ground where it's far less of a factor than, say, the writing or the art.

Maybe - Maybe not. I don't really know. The question makes an assumption , (Is it true that you beat your wife ? Why ?) , that question would be fit if it was directed at a wife beater , and so I can't really know whether the question is as overtly simplistic as you imply. (Indeed most fans may prefer to read about antiheroes in comparison with Superheroes. Assuming art and writing quality is as much of the same standard as possible. Or maybe most fans don't care at all about whether the protagonists are superheroes or antiheroes like you imply. The OP does want someone to answer by saying "Yes it's true .because." though. But it appears he is doing it because he wants to write an essay.)

Edit : Actually. the question seems pretty right on a second thought. You answered to
Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? And Why ? No , it isn't true because its my suspicion that there's a few on the fringes that care one way or the other, and the vast middle ground where it's far less of a factor than, say, the writing or the art.

[Acecool]

Is it true that fans prefer read about antiheroes than about superheroes? Why it is so? Help me with this thing I need it to write my essey about antiheroes :wink: please!:biggrin:

In addition to what other people have said, there is a grim primal satisfaction that you get when the anti-hero does something bad to bad people. It is like watching Jack Bauer torture some one that is an obvious bad guy. Or when Rorschach threw the hot oil in the guy's face while screaming that the criminals were locked in with him, not the other way around. While in the real world we know it doesn't work and is generally stupid, there is something in the back of your mind that thinks, "that's what they deserved".

What is really good though, is when the anit-hero, who was so sure of himself, that he was doing the right thing, finds out that killing bad guy X turned out to be a really big mistake.

edit: Besides who doesn't get a rush when Villain X is scare sh1tless by antihero Y.

[psychic_therapy]

The "antihero" has a built in advantage vs the perfect superhero... granted, it's all about how they are written/portrayed, but the antihero has a head start in terms of character interest.

[Pól Rua]

Anti-hero vs 'Perfect' hero is a false dichotomy.
A hero can be brave, noble and virtuous without being an anti-hero. The fact that we can only approach this as 'goody two-shoes' vs 'scumbags' dichotomy has hamstrung this discussion from the outset. Just because a guy's not shoving a power-drill into the baddies' neck doesn't make him Dudley Do-Right.

[Donald M.]

Anti-hero vs 'Perfect' hero is a false dichotomy.
A hero can be brave, noble and virtuous without being an anti-hero. The fact that we can only approach this as 'goody two-shoes' vs 'scumbags' dichotomy has hamstrung this discussion from the outset.

No kidding.

To my understanding, (and I admit my understanding may be skewed or incorrect) you have an Antihero when the protagonist's unheroic, as opposed to heroic qualities are what drives the story.

This means that most superheroes don't qualify. If he's out stopping crimes and saving lives he's a hero, even if he likes rough sex and drinks too much.

The last couple hundred years of literature has brought increasing moral complexity. The term "Antihero" means something specific in the realm of literature. It does not mean "Bad-ass hero".

[Adam C]

Anti-hero vs 'Perfect' hero is a false dichotomy.
A hero can be brave, noble and virtuous without being an anti-hero. The fact that we can only approach this as 'goody two-shoes' vs 'scumbags' dichotomy has hamstrung this discussion from the outset. Just because a guy's not shoving a power-drill into the baddies' neck doesn't make him Dudley Do-Right.

Indeed, and I've also noticed that 'anti-hero' in comics is only ever defined by how much a protagonist is willing to be mean or cold in dealing with his enemies. And while 'anti-hero' fits John Constantine and the Punisher to a T, it can also be applied oh...Arthur Dent of Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy who while not a bad person, isn't heroic in the least. He's just confused and hapless. You could also say that Sir. John Falstaff, Winston Smith of 1984, and wait for it...Homer Simpson are all anti-heroes in that they are protagonist characters who aren't all that heroic. (Homer is when the episode requires him to be, but he's also often thick-headed, selfish, and lazy; in contrast Hank Hill is much closer to be being a 'hero' character.)

So to answer the original poster's question, I'm not sure that comic fans actually like to read about 'anti-heroes' so much given the limited definition of the term within comics. I mean John Constantine has sustained his own series for years and the Punisher is a regular fixture in the Marvel Universe, but there's not evidence anti-heroes are that much more popular than superheroes. In fact Marvel's topselling franchise is no longer the X-Men, but the Avengers. And while Wolverine's a member, it's been a long time since he could be called an anti-hero in any shape or form. And while comic fans complain about the grimness of many comics these days it's also true that we're a long way from the days when Spawn was a popular title.

What we do see as being popular these days are heroes failing and having strong moments of doubt as seen from Identity Crisis and Dark Reign. And while I have my issues with the execution, I wouldn't necessarily means that this says 'anti-heroes' are more popular. (Major exception being Dark Avengers but it's written by a top selling comic writer.) Just that violence and over-the-top drama sells.

[Tages]

Or "the loudest, whiniest, most annoying and emotionally stunted fans".

Here, here.

Power fantasies are porn to adolescents. People who never grew out of that phase are going to love getting off on the idea of being a righteous character nonetheless unbound by petty ethics.

That isn't saying everyone who likes anti-heroes falls into this category, just that people who do naturally like anti-heroes.

[Aziz Abbasi]

Anti-Heroes do something good the bleeding heart heroes (according to Punisher) can't, and it is to get rid of the root of evil by destroying it

[Gingold]

Anti-Heroes do something good the bleeding heart heroes (according to Punisher) can't, and it is to get rid of the root of evil by destroying it

Odysseus is an anti-hero then?

[Donald M.]

Anti-Heroes do something good the bleeding heart heroes (according to Punisher) can't, and it is to get rid of the root of evil by destroying it

The kind of "hero" you describe does not "get rid of the root of evil by destroying it," they kill bad guys. Plenty more to take their place because they aren't the root, they're just the weeds.

Part of the whole point of the Punisher (at least when he's being written by someone who doesn't think turning him into Frankenstein, or an angelic demonslayer, or sending him back in time to fight Al Capone is a good idea) is that he never runs out of thugs to kill precisely because all he does is kill without ever doing anything to address the problems that create the criminals he goes after.

Not that he could honestly hope to do anything about the root causes of criminal behavior, but trying's gotta be more productive than shooting gangsters in the face for thirty years.

Frank doesn't kill because he's a hero, he kills because he's a sick man.

Ironically that makes him an anti-hero, but not for the silly, adolescent reason you suppose.

[TwinPistols]

The kind of "hero" you describe does not "get rid of the root of evil by destroying it," they kill bad guys. Plenty more to take their place because they aren't the root, they're just the weeds....

Frank doesn't kill because he's a hero, he kills because he's a sick man.


Yep. That's Punisher to a T. I'd also add that if the impossible actually happened, and Frank did kill every single last bad guy on Earth, he'd kill himself. Without his mass-murder mission he's an empty shell of a man.


And this is your anti-hero. A mass-murderer.


Here's to comics! :smile:

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

The term anti-hero has been "on the map" for many centuries. Please read a book.on the map in comics, smarty mcsmartface.

[Donald M.]

on the map in comics, smarty mcsmartface.

Dude, when they first started out, Batman and Superman both killed their enemies on a regular basis. It didn't last long, but it happened.

That's not even getting into the age of Crime and Horror comics a decade or so later, with stories that regularly focused on unheroic protagonists.

Then about a decade after that you have Marvel introducing the idea of superheroes being fallible and human and making mistakes.

It's not some daring new concept, even in comics.

[Aziz Abbasi]

OK, he shoots the villains with a fatal not mercy bullets

[Noria]

I have thought that BATMAN is antihero! Isn't he? hmmmm...these are results of reading Batman Chronicles...:frown: And how about Lobo? He is massmurderer...:tongue:

[Kees_L]

on the map in comics, smarty mcsmartface.


Dude, when they first started out, Batman and Superman both killed their enemies on a regular basis. It didn't last long, but it happened.

That's not even getting into the age of Crime and Horror comics a decade or so later, with stories that regularly focused on unheroic protagonists.

Then about a decade after that you have Marvel introducing the idea of superheroes being fallible and human and making mistakes.

It's not some daring new concept, even in comics.

I think it rather stupid when comic fans start thinking themselves in some kind of alternate universe.
Anti-hero just means anti-hero, comics or no. No matter what the darned Marvel Encyclopedia might be trying to say.

[dupersuper]

Depends which fans you ask. My favourite character is Superman, so...no for me.

[Pól Rua]

Anti-Heroes do something good the bleeding heart heroes (according to Punisher) can't, and it is to get rid of the root of evil by destroying it
Yes, well, I wouldn't listen to the Punisher... he's a sociopath.
http://img.zoints.com/public/profile/1/0/0/7/1/0/2/7/main.jpg
Also... fictional. So he doesn't count.


Part of the whole point of the Punisher (at least when he's being written by someone who doesn't think turning him into Frankenstein, or an angelic demonslayer, or sending him back in time to fight Al Capone is a good idea)...
'Frankencastle' has been a big fun sammich with extra fun sauce. It's been a massive silly romp.


on the map in comics, smarty mcsmartface.
Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner was created in 1939.


I have thought that BATMAN is antihero! Isn't he?
No, Batman is a hero. He's just being written as paranoid and antisocial by modern writers.

[Winslow]

Haven't read the thread, but will throw in my 2 cents anyway.

Superheroes work best as heroes. Hence the name, superhero.

They are supposed to be icons.

And contrary to conventional wisdom, you can write an intelligent and thought provoking story with a hero rather than anti-hero. Hero doesn't mean they don't have obstacles to overcome.

[stelok]

Heroes' uncompromising morals and goody-two-shoes attitude are boring.

Anti-heroes are more interesting, more dynamic.

Archer (Fate/Stay Night)
Char Aznable (Mobile Suit Gundam)
Hei (Darker Than Black)
Van (Gun x Sword)

[Pól Rua]

Heroes' uncompromising morals and goody-two-shoes attitude are boring.
Anti-heroes are more interesting, more dynamic.


Anti-hero vs 'Perfect' hero is a false dichotomy.
A hero can be brave, noble and virtuous without being an anti-hero. The fact that we can only approach this as 'goody two-shoes' vs 'scumbags' dichotomy has hamstrung this discussion from the outset. Just because a guy's not shoving a power-drill into the baddies' neck doesn't make him Dudley Do-Right.

I wish I'd said something like that.

[Winslow]

I wish I'd said something like that.

I think most fans don't understand what the terms mean.

Having said that ... using a very popular manga:

Naruto is a hero

Sasuke is an anti-hero.

Sasuske beats out Naruto in fan polls in Japan, yet he is reviled in the U.S.. So what fans want out of their literature is definitely a cultural thing.

[Mike Pothier]

I LIKE "boy scout" heroes. I want to see or read about a hero that stops a bank robbery, foils a hostage situation, solves the mystery, then gets the kitten out of the tree just for the hell of it. Heroes like that aren't perfect, they're simply selfless. They can and do kill, they just try to explore every other option before resorting to that.

Heroes like that make for great stores BECAUSE you can put them in situations that challenge their morals. Its easy to take the life of a monster when he's at your mercy, but dammit, you're not a monster too.

[Cotton]

I would say, instead, that fans have been convinced by years of storytelling that idealistic superheroes are either naive, secretly evil, or only worthy of parody.

Because idealistic heroes are hard to live up to. Nobody can live up to Superman's standards, but people can live up to the shady, underbelly, of Mad Max's standards.

[Pól Rua]

Because idealistic heroes are hard to live up to. Nobody can live up to Superman's standards, but people can live up to the shady, underbelly, of Mad Max's standards.

Again, with the false dichotomy.
And besides, it's not about 'living up to' it's about 'aspiring to'.
That's why the character is the 'hero', not the 'schmuck who happens to be the main character'.
Surely we can still aspire towards being decent human beings, having a measure of courage, principle and honour...?

Unfortunately, it seems easier just to go, "Hey, I'm a scumbag, I don't see why I should have to do anything about it..."

[howyadoin]

Again, with the false dichotomy.
And besides, it's not about 'living up to' it's about 'aspiring to'.
That's why the character is the 'hero', not the 'schmuck who happens to be the main character'.
Surely we can still aspire towards being decent human beings, having a measure of courage, principle and honour...?

Unfortunately, it seems easier just to go, "Hey, I'm a scumbag, I don't see why I should have to do anything about it..."A man's reach should exceed his grasp...

[Pól Rua]

A man's reach should exceed his grasp...

Best not just to try really.
I mean, trying to be a better human being, hell, even THINKING about trying to be a better human being is SOOO HAAAAAAAARD...

Far, far easier to just make my heroes callow shitheels just like me so I can wallow in my own crapulence.

[Action Ace]

Because idealistic heroes are hard to live up to. Nobody can live up to Superman's standards,

very VERY few even want to try :frown:


I'll take the boy scout every time. I prefer Superman to Batman, Luke Skywalker to Han Solo and Victor Lazlow to Rick Blaine.

[Pól Rua]

very VERY few even want to try :frown:

I'll take the boy scout every time. I prefer Superman to Batman, Luke Skywalker to Han Solo and Victor Lazlow to Rick Blaine.

And again, it's not 'boy scouts' and 'scumbags'. Those are the two extremes.
I mean, honestly, when Batman is being written well instead of as a teeth gritting psychopath, he's a Hero.
Han Solo, for all of his flippant bravado, is a Hero.
I'd even say the same for Rick Blaine.

In each case, they have some 'texture' added to their character, but none of them are unprincipled, lousy human beings.

[Michael P]

Luke Skywalker to Han Solo

Ooh, see, I like Han because he starts out as an anti-hero, and gradually moves toward a more heroic position. In fact, he's really a hero masquerading as an anti-hero. An anti-anti-hero, if you will.

Of course, I like Luke too. He's so heroic, he teaches the supposedly professional heroes a thing or two about the virtues of forgiveness and compassion.

[Pól Rua]

Ooh, see, I like Han because he starts out as an anti-hero, and gradually moves toward a more heroic position. In fact, he's really a hero masquerading as an anti-hero. An anti-anti-hero, if you will.

Yeah, Han's anti-hero status is a total pose.
"Hey kid, I'm a tough-ass space smuggler and I won't help anyone unless they pony up some serious cash first...


"...oh, okay... you got me. Would you like a cup of tea?"

[mgs]

The Anti hero has been around for a while the Death Wish and Dirty Harry movies from 30 years ago being a more mainstream example.

true. and even before those movies, Eastwood's 'spaghetti western' movies. :wink:

[Paradox]

Or Milton. Or Shakespeare. Or even before that. It's not at all a new or modern concept.

[Alexander the immortal]

true. and even before those movies, Eastwood's 'spaghetti western' movies. :wink:

The nameless samurai of Yojimbo owns Eastwood's ass.

[mgs]

Or Milton. Or Shakespeare. Or even before that. It's not at all a new or modern concept.
true.


I would say, instead, that fans have been convinced by years of storytelling that idealistic superheroes are either naive, secretly evil, or only worthy of parody.
nah, I think it's just a more realistic look at life and people. you realize how things work sometimes, as you get older.

just because some people may do some good things in their lives does not mean that they are themselves good people and vice verss and everything in between.

[mgs]

The nameless samurai of Yojimbo owns Eastwood's ass.
we all know that guns trump swords, except in fiction. :tongue:

[Alexander the immortal]

we all know that guns trump swords, except in fiction. :tongue:

I meant as a character , but let's not make this a rumbles thread ... :tongue:

[mgs]

I meant as a character , but let's not make this a rumbles thread ... :tongue:
yes, there is a place and time for such....discussion. :wink:

[thehod]

I'd always considered Raistlin from the Dragonlance novels to be an example of an anti-hero.

He ultimately helps to defeat the bad guy, but the reason is mostly for his own selfish ends, and he is not above stepping over a pile of smoking dead bodies that he created to reach his goals.

[mgs]

I'd always considered Raistlin from the Dragonlance novels to be an example of an anti-hero.

He ultimately helps to defeat the bad guy, but the reason is mostly for his own selfish ends, and he is not above stepping over a pile of smoking dead bodies that he created to reach his goals.
he seems to have the same motives of an anti-hero, but he's not one in my mind.

[Winslow]

Again, with the false dichotomy.
And besides, it's not about 'living up to' it's about 'aspiring to'.
That's why the character is the 'hero', not the 'schmuck who happens to be the main character'.
Surely we can still aspire towards being decent human beings, having a measure of courage, principle and honour...?

Unfortunately, it seems easier just to go, "Hey, I'm a scumbag, I don't see why I should have to do anything about it..."

Yeah, that Jesus guy or that Buddha guy have hardly any followers because of that.

[David Walton]

I like antiheroes well enough, but only when 'anti' is something of a misnomer.

If we're talking about the idea that a hero's motivations can be mixed (revenge and justice might be confused in his mind), then I'm down with that.

My main caveat being that the 'anti'-hero is ultimately about a redemptive strain running through even the most confused individuals.

[Adam C]

Yeah, that Jesus guy or that Buddha guy have hardly any followers because of that.

Yeah...whatever happened to those mooks?

[Asmith]

The hero and the anti-hero. When done well the hero can show us what's best in us all, creating a construct to aspire to. While the anti-hero displays for us the struggle between our virtues and vices, giving us a structure that asks us to think about our own scruples.

When done poorly, the hero is a thing not to aspire to, but a construct that stands beyond us. As a creature that has attained our better aspects so we do not have to even try. And the anti-hero instead of leading us through an inspection of our private morality, gives us instead a cul de sac in which to revel and take pleasure in the lowest points within in us.

One is neither better nor worse. Nor one more important. Both have a need for being. Both have a strong need to be writ well.

[Libaax]

I dont think about a goody good hero or an anti-hero its about how its written,how believable the stories are.

For example i cant enjoy Superman in comics because he was too much of a boy scout,how he was written. On the other hand Captain America is one of my fav heroes and he is pretty much similar straight arrow good hero. He was written better to me in recent years.

Punisher in Max Punisher is when not done well a mindless killer but with quality writers its a great characters. Best marvel series in 00s under Ennis.

[Pól Rua]

true. and even before those movies, Eastwood's 'spaghetti western' movies. :wink:

Or Elizabethan Revenge Melodrama from the 16th Century... the fact that lots of the Arthurian Knights were prone to fits of uncontrolled rage... or Herakles' similar fits of rage... or the Epic of Gilgamesh...

[Pól Rua]

nah, I think it's just a more realistic look at life and people. you realize how things work sometimes, as you get older.

just because some people may do some good things in their lives does not mean that they are themselves good people and vice verss and everything in between.

The problem is that, in comics for the most part, we're not given a 'realistic' character, we're given a knee-jerk reactionary counter-response to a false perception of 'heroes' as 'boy scouts'.
A well-crafted anti-hero can be ab amazing storytelling tool, however, most of the characters we think of readily as anti-heroes are just a reactionary rejection of a false paradigm with the diametric opposite.

It's futile knee-jerk teenage rebellion writ large.
"This isn't your father's Comic Book Hero!"

It's mostly bullshit faux-edginess.

[Adam C]

Or Elizabethan Revenge Melodrama from the 16th Century... the fact that lots of the Arthurian Knights were prone to fits of uncontrolled rage... or Herakles' similar fits of rage... or the Epic of Gilgamesh...

That's what bores me about a lot modern Arthurian retellings, the lack of Lancelot's uncontrolled fits of rage. That, and Arthur and Merlin are such goody two-shoes.

[mgs]

The problem is that, in comics for the most part, we're not given a 'realistic' character, we're given a knee-jerk reactionary counter-response to a false perception of 'heroes' as 'boy scouts'.
A well-crafted anti-hero can be ab amazing storytelling tool, however, most of the characters we think of readily as anti-heroes are just a reactionary rejection of a false paradigm with the diametric opposite.

It's futile knee-jerk teenage rebellion writ large.
"This isn't your father's Comic Book Hero!"

It's mostly bullshit faux-edginess.
interesting...I'll agree with ya on this Pol. :smile:

[Pól Rua]

Seriously, I've got nothing against anti-heroes. I just find so many characters people think of as 'anti-heroes' are pretty bloody facile.

[Libaax]

Seriously, I've got nothing against anti-heroes. I just find so many characters people think of as 'anti-heroes' are pretty bloody facile.

I feel the same, some try so hard to be anti-hero that its looks almost funny.


Look at Wolverine, usually he is written as a mindless killer and we are suppose to think thats heroic because he is anti-hero.....


I prefer really good heroes and No-Hero. Stories from the POV of some that is not close to a hero that are fooling themselves to think they are doing good. Perfect example Max Punisher at its best.

[Pól Rua]

I feel the same, some try so hard to be anti-hero that its looks almost funny.
Yup.
I mean, seriously, it takes more than a three-day growth and a cigar to be an anti-hero, which is why a talented writer like Dashiell Hammett was so damn good at them... and Chris Claremont really, really wasn't.

[Tages]

Yup.
I mean, seriously, it takes more than a three-day growth and a cigar to be an anti-hero, which is why a talented writer like Dashiell Hammett was so damn good at them... and Chris Claremont really, really wasn't.

After your first Jim Thompson novel, almost any of the Nineties "dark 'n gritty" comic book anti-heroes looks like one of the Care Bears in comparison.

[DiceRoll]

The hero and the anti-hero. When done well the hero can show us what's best in us all, creating a construct to aspire to. While the anti-hero displays for us the struggle between our virtues and vices, giving us a structure that asks us to think about our own scruples.

When done poorly, the hero is a thing not to aspire to, but a construct that stands beyond us. As a creature that has attained our better aspects so we do not have to even try. And the anti-hero instead of leading us through an inspection of our private morality, gives us instead a cul de sac in which to revel and take pleasure in the lowest points within in us.

One is neither better nor worse. Nor one more important. Both have a need for being. Both have a strong need to be writ well.
Forgive the bump but I really enjoyed the way you described the two.
Can you give us some examples of well-done and not-so-well-done heroes/anti-heroes?