Tweet
>Don't even get me started on that Far Fetched BS that we are Lead to Believe this guy Just Magically showed up one Day,.. & with no Prior experience Sewed that suit Flawless for the 1st time touching a Needle.
But.... getting a magic ring from a dying alien who's part of an intergalactic police force is LESS far-fetched?
>but Peter Parker's real-life problems make him easier for a reader to relate too.
That was the idea. Marvel started the "heroes with problems" schtick. It was a novel approach that was MEANT to make the characters more.... well, REAL isn't the word.... more empathizable. DC characters were always icons. Due in no small part to their being the superhero prototypes. DC heroes didn't deal with doubt, or the bills, or having to go to the bathroom. They were (and to a degree still ARE) above those sort of things. They're gods. Even a "normal guy" like Batman towers over mortals. (AND the laws of physics.) At the core, this is the difference between both casts of characters. And neither is superior to the other. They're both perfectly valid, and can potentially be incredibly entertaining.
But folks need a "winner;" a dominant idea, the one paragon of the genre. It's cyclic. The dark, gritty, street level hero is kinda overwrought these days, so folks are moving towards the old school larger than life hero. (Having fallen out of fashion for so longit's now novel again.) Which of course means the OTHER type is poo-poo. Eventually they'll get tired of that, seeing it as simplistic no doubt; and the pendulum will swing again....
But I think it's unfair to say one is inherently superior tot he other, or more "realistic." Both the magic alien ring that can do anything but needs batteries AND the guy who gets bit by a radioactive bug gets superstrength and not Leukemia are equally implausible.
>it's unfair to compare spiderman to GL
Only if you don't take into account the superheroism that when two heroes clash, they'll SOMEHOW be overall equal to each other. Thus can Spiderman contribute to a caper with Superman, and Batman kung-fu the Hulk into submission.
Don C.
But.... getting a magic ring from a dying alien who's part of an intergalactic police force is LESS far-fetched?
>but Peter Parker's real-life problems make him easier for a reader to relate too.
That was the idea. Marvel started the "heroes with problems" schtick. It was a novel approach that was MEANT to make the characters more.... well, REAL isn't the word.... more empathizable. DC characters were always icons. Due in no small part to their being the superhero prototypes. DC heroes didn't deal with doubt, or the bills, or having to go to the bathroom. They were (and to a degree still ARE) above those sort of things. They're gods. Even a "normal guy" like Batman towers over mortals. (AND the laws of physics.) At the core, this is the difference between both casts of characters. And neither is superior to the other. They're both perfectly valid, and can potentially be incredibly entertaining.
But folks need a "winner;" a dominant idea, the one paragon of the genre. It's cyclic. The dark, gritty, street level hero is kinda overwrought these days, so folks are moving towards the old school larger than life hero. (Having fallen out of fashion for so longit's now novel again.) Which of course means the OTHER type is poo-poo. Eventually they'll get tired of that, seeing it as simplistic no doubt; and the pendulum will swing again....
But I think it's unfair to say one is inherently superior tot he other, or more "realistic." Both the magic alien ring that can do anything but needs batteries AND the guy who gets bit by a radioactive bug gets superstrength and not Leukemia are equally implausible.
>it's unfair to compare spiderman to GL
Only if you don't take into account the superheroism that when two heroes clash, they'll SOMEHOW be overall equal to each other. Thus can Spiderman contribute to a caper with Superman, and Batman kung-fu the Hulk into submission.
Don C.
Comment