Is Warner Bros. Embarrassed by Superhero Tropes?

[ticklefist]

worst opinion piece ever. Give me a break.

best argument ever i like the points you made.

[Mr. Holmes]

I just wonder if the whole superhero formula needs updating. The hardcore fan in me says that I like my characters colorful and even a bit garish. Another part of me says that, maybe, the whole genre needs to evolve.

I get why the idea of masks and code names exists. At the same time, I also know that many of the scariest real villains in this post-9/11 world hide in the shadows. They're seemingly nameless and faceless.

One of the things I liked about Civil War was Spider-Man unmasking. Yeah. It brought the danger to Peter's doorstep, but it also made him more accessible in a way. No longer was he this "masked menace". No. Powers and quirky rogues aside, it made him that much more like that cop or firefighter friend you have. Spider-Man had friends and family. He was the formerly bullied geek and (then) current school teacher. He wasn't just the icon saving the day. He was the guy who actually lived next door and had Cheerios for breakfast. I think that, for however long it lasted, stripping him of his secret identity was a stroke of genius.

At the same time, I also feel as if what motivated the costume designs for older characters such as Superman or Captain America no longer holds as much sway. Back in the 40s and 50s, moviegoers had decidedly different tastes. Cowboy & pirate movies were big. Detective serials were big. Pro wrestlers and sideshow strong men still helped define masculinity, so to speak. That's why, back then, comic characters would emulate them with their buccaneer boots, underwear on the outside, colorful masks, sidekicks, and so on. I'm not really sure that stuff speaks to modern audiences Let me explain.

1. With sites like Perez Hilton or TMZ around, there's no way that Superman or Batman could ever have a secret identity. I get why real world undercover cops have "secret identities". However, superheroes are far more exposed. One closeup pic of Superman online and the nerds at home would identify him as Clark Kent in a heartbeat. It's much harder to keep a secret in the digital age. It's not like the old days where Lois Lane would have to concoct a scheme to unmask Superman. Heck not. Dragging Superman's pic into Google images and "visually similar" would turn up pictures of Clark. Game over.

2. Costumes don't really work either. Suppose that Bruce Wayne is having a night on the town. He's walking back from the theater. An attempted rape is occurring in a nearby alley. How long will it take Bruce to suit up? Imagine how long it takes you to get dressed in the morning. Now magnify that times 10 because you have to undress and then armor up. The rapist would be long gone by the time Batman got on the scene. It's like that Robot Chicken sketch with Voltron taking too long to form and everybody's dead by the time he does. I'm not saying that superheroes have to necessarily be in plain clothes. However, I'm not saying that they should be in costumes either. Cops and firefighters wear functional uniforms. The modern superhero should be more practical and less flamboyant.

3. Do code names really work? In the real world, most criminals don't have code names. Occasionally, you'll get "The Plain Jane Bandit" or something like that, but that's just the media's way of drawing attention to them so that they can get caught quicker. You don't necessarily see real world killers calling themselves "The Mauler" or "Bloodbath". :) I think that, in comics, code names are a carry over from the days when the mafia used to have these Dick Tracy style nicknames for their guys. I don't know. Maybe it's me, but I don't see code names meaning much anymore, outside of wrestling and maybe military agencies.

I don't see any reason to be embarrassed by super hero tropes. I just don't think that they necessarily speak to today's audiences much.

I read a comic like Avengers VS X-Men and I just shake my head. That scene in AvX #6 with Pixie & Squirrel Girl playing with action figures is exactly what most comics are about these days. Most comics are less about people and more about action figures. The amount of human drama is getting drowned out by what elements can be made into posters, t-shirts, action figures, or other products.

Don't get me wrong. I understand TOTALLY that this is necessary in big business. I just think that the "soul" of comics is dying. The comic book "standards" need to be updated. For these characters to feel relevant they need to move on and past some of these tropes. We moved past the Silver Age goofiness. Now, maybe it's time for us to also see comics evolve yet again. Ditch some of the tried and true and take risks by doing stories about people again. PAD does this very well with X-Factor. Code names are nearly nonexistent in his book. Costumes are barely there. When they are, they're functional and usually not very superhero-y. Secret identities? They're a detective agency. I think that a lot of what PAD does right with X-Factor should be a model for where the superhero genre needs to go.

There's a good article about this subject, about the idea of the post-superhero

[StoneGold]

It's hard to argue that the Smallville formula was not a success -- 10 seasons is nothing to scoff at, but that's not going to work for every character. If they plan to do the same for "Amazon," well, I don't see it working.

It's a WB success. Not quite the same thing as an actual success.

[asiansupes]

I agree with the article 1,000%. By that I mean that WB is doing it's best to distance itself from the source material.

The new Superman movie looks to be dark and grim and gritty. Something Superman isn't and shouldn't be. I think it was Ty Templeton who said he was happy to have Batman movies that he couldn't go see with his young son, but he'd be upset if he couldn't see a Superman movie with him. I agree with that sentiment. Kevin Maguire had similar comments. Even the costume in the Snyder/Cavill movie is proof of how much WB is embarrassed by the source material: they ditched the trunks and most likely would have ditched the cape as well since capes are at least as "silly", "goofy", "lame" and so on as trunks. Unfortunately, this fad has made it into the comics in the nuDCU. One can say that the costume doesn't make the movie, but that's not true for comic book superheroes who's costumes are very much a part of the characters. Ruining the costume is the first step (and not the only one taken all too often) in ruining the character.

The Nolan/Bale movies have been good movies, but you can't really say they're good Batman movies since Batman is in them so little. Batman appeared about as much in the (fantastic) Gotham Central comics (which should serve as a perfect example of how to make a "realistic" comic book movie or television series) as he did in the Nolan/Bale movies.

The recent rumor of WB executives stopping into a comic store asking about reaction to Frank Miller being attached to a Justice League movie and comments about needing to go darker from people attached to the Green Lantern movie just shows how much they don't understand about what makes the characters work.

WB should really turn over ALL of DC (comics, animated television shows, animated movies, live action movies, video games, etc.) to Bruce Timm, Paul Dini and Greg Weisman. All of them have produced a lot of good work in various media which has been well received by fans, more general public and critics alike. All of them also really seem to "get" the DC characters in a way that Nolan, Synder and others don't seem to get (I'd much rather the nuDCU be the DCU that's shown in Young Justice).

Seeing Captain America in the Avengers showed that Superman could still fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" in movies if WB had the guts to do it well instead of having him fight for "truth, justice, all that stuff."

I just don't see the grim and gritty in the trailer/teaser/posters for "Man of Steel".If anything, they hinted at a journey, while tough and full of turbulence, will end in heroism. In fact, the Jor-El teaser had a line from 'All-Star Superman', one of the more uplifting Superman books in thed last twenty years. The removal of the trunks is much ado about nothing, as well. I'm one of the biggest Superman fans but I don't mind the lack of trunks. I like the sci-fi feel of the suit which, at least, harkens back to the 30s and serials and comic strips. Also, I'm happy the t"and American way" is gone..for now, at least. That stuff wasn't part of superman until World War II and was brought back in time for the 1950s and the Cold War. Yeah, Superman landed in Kansas, but he fights for all humankind (and any being that needs help, really).

Funny, I remember Batman being the focal point in the "Dark Knight" trilogy. "Begins" is about the creation and ascension of a symbol. Look at the lives that Batman/Bruce influences and vice versa: Gordon, alfred, Lucious Fox, Rachel, and the numerous citizens of Gotham. "Dark Knight" is about the meaning ofthat symbol. Batman showed up alot and in the end made a sacrifice. "Rises" is about the fall, rebirth, and legacy of the symbol. Hell, this one, while lacks Batman, pretty much is "No Man's Land" and "Knightfall" with a little "DKR" thrown in. Nolan even threw in a obscure name in Batman-lore: John Blake. Just bercause Batman isn't in every scene, doesn't mean it's a bad Batman movie.

Finally, i'd like to say no to Bruce Timm and crew as the DC caretakers. Timm and company do Batman amazingly well, JLA pretty well, and Superman-not so well.

Sorry for that rant, everybody. :)

[dupersuper]

WORST OPINION PIECE EVER. Give me a break.

Why? I more or less agree.

I think TV's lower budgets make it difficult to fully embrace the comic book 'look and feel' without coming across as unbearably cheesy.

That's true to.

I thought this was an excellent article. Then again, I've often wondered the same myself so maybe totally biased. Yes, costumes are harder to do on live action TV and make them work. But it has been done. The Flash TV series comes to mind (Complete with a reason for the suit)

I'm not sure that's the best example...it always looked overly stuffed and bulky for a runner, despite the attempted explanation.

the grim travesty of Dial H for Hero,

Is...there another Dial H for Hero book I'm missing?

I just wonder if the whole superhero formula needs updating. The hardcore fan in me says that I like my characters colorful and even a bit garish. Another part of me says that, maybe, the whole genre needs to evolve.

Why? Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk have all been huge hits. Despite it's tepid critical response, Superman Returns made money. Even Green Lanterns performance is only considered a failure because of the ridiculous budget they had to make back. The general public seem just fine with super hero tropes.

It's a WB success. Not quite the same thing as an actual success.

*setting DVR to tape Supernatural and Arrow* I'm ok with that.

I just don't see the grim and gritty in the trailer/teaser/posters for "Man of Steel".If anything, they hinted at a journey, while tough and full of turbulence, will end in heroism. In fact, the Jor-El teaser had a line from 'All-Star Superman', one of the more uplifting Superman books in thed last twenty years.

Didn't Carvill say in some interview that he read that and Death/Return? Or was it Death/Return and Red Sun?

[StoneGold]

*setting DVR to tape Supernatural and Arrow* I'm ok with that.

That's fine. It's more, don't use their standards of success as overall success. But hell, I've liked many an unsuccessful thing.

[asiansupes]

Why? I more or less agree.



That's true to.



I'm not sure that's the best example...it always looked overly stuffed and bulky for a runner, despite the attempted explanation.



Is...there another Dial H for Hero book I'm missing?



Why? Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk have all been huge hits. Despite it's tepid critical response, Superman Returns made money. Even Green Lanterns performance is only considered a failure because of the ridiculous budget they had to make back. The general public seem just fine with super hero tropes.



*setting DVR to tape Supernatural and Arrow* I'm ok with that.



Didn't Carvill say in some interview that he read that and Death/Return? Or was it Death/Return and Red Sun?

Yeah. it was definitely Death and Return. Cavill said it at SDCC 2012. However, Synder and David S. Goyer are drawing from all eras of Superman, which is good. I'm glad that they are taking a modern take while being inspired by the past. The first movie poster is almost dead-on to one of Alex Ross' paintings.

[kalorama]

This. People can discredit Smallville all they want but for it to last 10 seasons they must have been doing something right to keep the viewers tuned in

True, but by virtue of it being on the CW, the number of viewers they needed to tune in was substantially lower than it would have been on any other network. If anyone other than CW had aired the show it likely wouldn't have made it to a second season.

[Emissary of Justice]

8.4 million viewers tuned in to watch the season premiere of season 1 and even more tuned in for season 2's premiere. CBS' new show Made in Jersey opened to 7.7 million viewers.

So it makes sense to tone some of that down so it doesn't look like a cosplaying fan film. In the case of Arro specifically, it'as based on Mike Grell's Longbow Hunters.

Comics and superheroes are so tied together, because the colorful, bombastic nature of superheroes works best that way. It only seems logical to me to want to tone that stuff down when you're doing live action.

See, that excuse doesn't fly because we've already seen Green Arrow adapted to TV through Smallville and have seen it work. Sure, not everything about the character was the same, but costume?! They adapted that costume to the comic book because it was so awesome!

Finally, i'd like to say no to Bruce Timm and crew as the DC caretakers. Timm and company do Batman amazingly well, JLA pretty well, and Superman-not so well.

Two words: Cardboard speech.

[RecentlyReturned]

There is a distinct difference between DC and Marvel - the world the characters live in. It is my opinion this plays a large part in why studios feel they have to try more radically different approaches to the DC characters in order to make them 'believable'. Seeing a guy in tights and a cape running around New York City still gives the viewer the background that "New York City is being invaded!". Even during the scenes your mind automatically races to familiar landmarks, if they fall or still stand etc. It still feels like 'real life'.

DC on the other hand you have a whole seperate reality - Gotham, Smallville, Emerald City etc. It is much easier to go the fantasical route in these settings because they already live in our imaginations. If I put a bunch of cartoon farm animlas running around talking like humans, getting into childish adventures and called their town Smallville would it really seem to be so far fetched? Imaginary characters, imaginary landscape etc. Studios just can't take Superman out of Metropolis or Batman out of Gotham and stick them in LA or NY. In order to bring them up to modern times and a vien of greater believability they have to adjust the characters, and usually the costumes. Take Nolan's Batman run vs. Tim Burton's run. There were no scenes with Joker pulling a pistol with a 12 foot barrel out of his jacket in Nolan's Batman. No outlandish gadgets. Even the Batmobile lost its' Adam West genre style for something more realistic. Characters, as the article states, like Batman are easier to adapt in their current environment because they are just human.

Arrow is staying true to the backstory with Ollie being lost and having to grow up and survive on an island where he hones his skills with a bow by necessity. I like that they are taking the storyline from the point in which he returns to civilization and has to fit in with societiy, its rules and the find his place without losing himself. What he wears or how his costume is designed should fit the times and place. Ollie at this point is no Bruce Wayne with billions of dollars. No massive group of R&D people to create and buy new toys.

This has always been DCs strength and weakness. It is a strength because it gives them complete license to twist the world around the characters to suit their needs. It is a weakness because they lose a sense of realism that is inherent in the Marvel Universe.

[kalorama]

8.4 million viewers tuned in to watch the season premiere of season 1 and even more tuned in for season 2's premiere. CBS' new show Made in Jersey opened to 7.7 million viewers.

(A) Smallville premiered in 2001 when the overall audience for broadcast TV was much, much larger, so that comparison is pretty much meaningless. If anything, on a relative basis, Made in Jersey opening numbers are probably better than Smallville's, compared to the overall field.


(B) Made in Jersey has aired, what, 2 episodes? For all we know it may get cancelled before the season even ends, so the fact that Smallville's pilot drew marginally more viewers than Jersey is pretty much insignificant.

(C) Shows are judged based on overall season ratings, not just a single episode. In its first season Smallville ranked 115th out of all primetime broadcast network shows, and that was the second highest ranking of its entire run.

Smallville was, by any conventional standard, a ratings dog, as are most of the shows that aired on CW/WB/UPN. It stayed on the air because it drew in a sizable segment of a desirable advertiser demographic, which allowed it turn a profit despite the fact that the overall viewership was so low.

[Enda8011]

I think with WB it's that the last time they took a chance with camp it tanked. Batman & Robin was a critical and finiancial failure and it took a few decades for them to repair the damage the Batman Film Franchise recieved from that..

Not to defend that film, but it did have a domestic gross of $107 million.

[carabas]

Not to defend that film, but it did have a domestic gross of $107 million.

And a budget of $127 million + promotion.

[StoneGold]

(A) Smallville premiered in 2001 when the overall audience for broadcast TV was much, much larger, so that comparison is pretty much meaningless. If anything, on a relative basis, Made in Jersey opening numbers are probably better than Smallville's, compared to the overall field.


(B) Made in Jersey has aired, what, 2 episodes? For all we know it may get cancelled before the season even ends, so the fact that Smallville's pilot drew marginally more viewers than Jersey is pretty much insignificant.

(C) Shows are judged based on overall season ratings, not just a single episode. In its first season Smallville ranked 115th out of all primetime broadcast network shows, and that was the second highest ranking of its entire run.

Smallville was, by any conventional standard, a ratings dog, as are most of the shows that aired on CW/WB/UPN. It stayed on the air because it drew in a sizable segment of a desirable advertiser demographic, which allowed it turn a profit despite the fact that the overall viewership was so low.

That said, it also flows both ways. It has lower ratings on CW because CW has fewer outlets than CBS.

[Enda8011]

I would guess part of this backlash on costumes has to do with the backlash against Adam West.

Part of the reason the Adam West version looked so tacky; they stayed so close to the print costumes (including Robin's outfit with pixie shoes and shaved legs).

“There was a reason why that TV show was played for laughs and that is when you put actual human beings in those costumes and act out those stories, it looks stupid”, per Max Allan Collins.

Collins notes that "I don’t see how any intelligent writer can approach a story about people in long underwear and capes without either removing their brain or putting their tongue in their cheek to a degree……. [On [presumably] the Christopher Reeve Superman films] The Superman movies have all, as far as I’m concerned fallen to a degree into the Batman TV show approach-maybe not quite as broad…..And I think they did that because because there’s no other way you can play it. It just doesn’t work. I mean, look at that costume".

Most film adaptations have since altered costumes-not the 1966 Adam West film. It stayed true.

As Count Karnstein, a Yuku poster noted:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum....ic/topic/14587
Like I said before, Batman 1966 is the single most accurate comic book movie ever made. If you look at all the changes other movies made to the characters’ origins, powers, costumes, etc, only the 1966 Batman comes close to a literal translation on screen. Every other movie is merely derivative.

When Count Karnstein made this view clear, he received a startled response. However, he persisted:

“To be totally clear, the last truly great, truly faithful superhero movie was Batman (1966)”.


More from Count Karnstein:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum....ic/topic/14587

This is why Batman ’66 was the pinnacle of superhero movies. It didn’t worry about audiences being jaded.

It didn’t say “Oh god, one more long white beard and we’ve hit the Arbitrary Audience Limit and it’ll tank!”.

It didn’t say “Oh, we need ‘realistic’ (if you’re a BMX biker) costumes because people will break into peals of malicious, derogatory laughter if we put them in spandex!”

It didn’t say “Oh good gosh, we need to tone down those bright colors!”

It didn’t say “Oh, that’s just not a believable origin/power/story. We need to alter it so that jaded adults will ‘buy’ it.”

It didn’t say “Nope, no blond villains because the villain will overshadow the good guys, since blonds are always heroes!”

No. None of that stupid nonsense. It said “Let’s take Batman out of the comics and put him on the screen.”


More from Count Karnstein: It [the 1966 film and TV series] unashamedly, unapologetically put the real Batman on the big screen and said “This is Batman as he is in the comics. If you don’t like it, tough shit.”

Batman 1966 did not:

Change the characters’ names to “avoid alliteration”
Change the characters’ costumes to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ origins to be more “sophisticated”
Change the characters’ powers to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ natures in order to fit some dipshit director’s “vision”

So yeah, there can be no denying it. Batman 1966 was by far the most faithful and most literal comic book adaptation ever put on film.

It amazes me when people make that claim while the proof is undeniable and un-contestable. Batman the movie and the tv show was totally faithful to the comics of the day and to the comics as they were for a decade before and after. That’s historical fact that only a pathological denier could refuse to believe. Compare the dates on the comics with the tv show. It is beyond question that I am right on that. [The TV show adapted stories published in 1965, the year before.]

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...-revealed-355/

http://www.goodsearch.com/search/web...oots%22&page=1

Of course, fimmakers, for their self-esteem, feel ashamed about working on these projects that derive from children's properties. Max Allan Collins said in 1987 that these properties derive from juvenile and adolescent literature, accept, just do not try to do it as adult. Of course, when Collins said that, properties derived from more adult thriller literature still had more prominence. However, the more prominent film franchises derive from children's properties in recent years.