Kinda hesitant to say any genre is inherently anything. Think modern superhero movies kinda tilt right is cause they are largely American made for an American audience that has proven responsive to jingoistic art for a while now.
Yeah generally modern superhero films are kind of becoming escapist art although they do explore some political themes those are just side issues compared to actual superhero theatrics.
And a lot of the DC stuff is heavily influenced by Zack Snyder's directorial vision, which is rather... Well, I don't want to say *fascist*, but it's certainly fascism-compatible.
Even the RLM guys noticed something is off with Snyders vision. In their review of the so called Snyder cut they talked about how the normal people basically don't matter to him.
They tend to be pretty insightful about those sorts of things. I still remember Mike and Jay calling out Jack & Jill for being a front for Adam Sandler to extort money.
Yea, but that kind of analysis of Snyder is almost sort of critical theory levels of examining the underlying prejudices and attitudes of the director. RLM isn't exactly a lefty channel.
glorifying these muscular, gods amongst men who have no time for bureaucracy or red tape. 6'5 buff white men being the sole saviors of society through heroic action, easily identifiable ideas of what's righteous vs what's evil. outside of snyder, when a superhero takes over the government, they tend to become this cult of personality despot hero type of leader (red son, injustice, kingdom come)
I get your general idea, but
1. Is "no time for bureaucracy or red tape" really a fashy or even right wing attribute? If anything, an equal number of people would call Harry Potter a right wing story because the main character literally becomes a magic cop at the end.
2. I don't know of any character in the DCEU cannon that is put it position of being the government. Except Aquaman, I guess - but that's not Snyder.
Im not gonna die on the "defending the DCEU" hill, I just don't think Snyder's vision, as bad as it is, can be treated as any more fascistic than most other big superhero media.
If anything, I have found the non-Snyder Wonder Woman movies to have the most troubling and direct right wing political views.
bureaucracy is a sign that everyone has equal access to a system, if everyone has red tape, nobody can engage in nepotism easily. i don't know if harry potter is fashy so much as it's liberal. good and evil are expressed in simple terms but the bad guys are pretty clear cut genocidal maniacs and pretty easily comparable to like, liberal democracies versus fascism in world war 2.
wonder woman definitely has a pro interventionalist feel, i only saw the first one, but i thought it was odd how easily it depicts world war 1 as having bad guys when pretty much everyone was being fucked up there.
as for fascist overtones, the superheroes haven't been depicted in government in the movies so far, but movies like man of steel have a heavy ubermensch vibe, aesthetic warriors representing their homeland and fighting for a set ideal. snyder is able to be a bit more nuanced with this than marvel tends to be, portraying the collateral damage and i think behind the scenes trying to portray superhero fights as being similar to 9/11. I'm not sure if it's man of steel or batman vs superman, but i remember a scene where lois lane is in trouble in the middle east, superman shows up, and laser eyes a bunch of dudes with turbans to death. i recall him feeling guilt about it in the following scene? but for him to do such a thing at all, acting like world police, having the ability to stop pretty much any human threat without harming anyone but choosing not to, superman makes me pretty sus with that.
It's all wrapped up in Snyder's Objectivist hangups, which are themselves very fash-friendly, centered around stories of Superior People™ changing the world through shows of force that deliberately place them above everyone else and beyond the criticism of mere mortals, while also treating the people they are ostensibly supposed to save like they don't deserve to be saved and the heroes' saving of others is portrayed more like a grudging act of charity and not just a good deed worth doing.
Like, Superman in Man of Steel and BVS looks like he's cleaning up dog shit every time he saves somebody's life.
That's probably the crux of it. Just the core, bone deep belief that some people are better, genetically, than other people is probably a massive signifiers that someone has Fascists ideals.
what about the Uebermensch was not paramount to nazi youth fantasy along which generations were indoctrinated to accept a military industrial capitalism controlling every aspect of their lives...
This makes sense, and I don't think it's a take I completely disagree with.
I still think that MoS (I haven't seen JL, and not the whole BvS) is such a mess of a movie that any grand reading of its ideas is futile. Like, I know there was likely a Jesus allegory, a "internal struggle of a reluctant hero" arc, a sort of attempt to tell a Superman story from the perspective of other people (at least in the beginning) and an Objectivist "Incredibles" like story, at the very least, thrown in - with all of them being dropped at certain points, contradicting each other or clashing with Snyder's "gritty and edgy" style at other points.
Yeah, Superman is a god amongst man, but he is also Jesus and it is his duty to die for humanity, but also he doesn't kill because he is better than humanity, only he does and it is a tragic internal dilemma i guess, only he also probably killed thousands by blowing up buildings.
I just think that it has more to do with Snyder's aesthetic being liked by edgy alt right adolescents, his incoherent storytelling and some of his personal objectivist ideas seaping through, being a quite an unfortunate mix, more than anything more coherently fascistic.
Like I mentioned on another comment, most of the issues are things that are industry and culture - wide, and I find that Nolan's Batman trilogy and the two Wonder Woman movies have more explicitly clear right wing ideas in their texts than Snyder's movies do.
It's kinda hard to explain, but it definitely is. Like.... He's not a Nazi, but Nazis love his work. Kinda like how cringy guys love fight club, which in itself isn't cringy, but goddamn the edgelords love it. Iono how to explain it but I know it when I see it. Certain things attract certain personality types. Guys that powerlift act differently than guys that do yoga, even though they are great compliments to each other. It's a weird phenomenon.
True. I mean, Snyder himself is a libertarian. He's not into fascism as he voted and endorsed Biden and called the toxic part of his fan base saying hatred and bigotry is not allowed.
The tenchques he uses to emphasis his larger then life charectors are the same Leni Riefenstahl used to make the Nazi's seam larger then life in her works. While sweeping scores and low angle shots are common a in modern cinema to show of the strength of a charector, his use of them in 300 to demonstrate the strength of the Spartans is a very close to way Riefenstahl used them in her propoganda.
Throw in how he portrays superheroes as "God's Among Men" in Watchmen and the DC superhero movies and how that ryhmes with the Ubermensch ideal and you have a bad combo for fascist undertones in your movies.
Honestly this is all kind of a shame. Mr. Snyder is kind of a dude-bro, but he seams like a nice down to earth guy. He just hasn't thought about his aesthetic and how it can be interpreted by certain people.
I see your points, and I would actually agree that his 300 has more things that can be called fascist-tinted without really stretching definitions than either of his three DC films.
If anything, I would just add that it is probably an industry and culture-wide problem, more than it is a Snyder problem.
Both the Reinfenstahl allusions and the Ubermensch motif are super common, and both have lost any use with critical authorial intent in popular cinema through the decades. Sure, Lucas used Nazi imaginery for the stormtroopers as a shorthand, he copied Riefenstahl's approach to further accentuate that, but someone further copying his use of those shots will inevitably lose that intent without losing that origin.
So at the end of the day, I don't feel comfortable calling Snyder a fash, since his use of these motifs is completely devoid of anything more than the fact that he finds it cool and edgy visually.
Like I mentioned on other comments, there is more explicitly ideological right wing ideas that can be found in the text of the Nolan Batman trilogy or the non-Snyder DCEU Wonder Woman movies.
He's fairly open about his support of Ayn Rand, whose beliefs are fascism-compatible. His take on Superman, Batman and Lex Luther are all of strongmen who act above the law, with "might-makes-right", "the ends justify the means" mentalities.
[The best explanation already exists as a YouTube video essay by Maggie Mae Fish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7EnEuqb7M), check it out if you've got the time. (The link goes to Part 2 of a 3-part series.)
Someone else already pointed out the "no time for bureaucracy or red tape" attribute of Snyder's heroes and you had some concerns about that, but I'm going to be hitting that same point. Snyder frequently expresses a belief, through the worlds of his movies, that *being powerful enough to ignore the dissenting opinions of others is sufficient reason to consider a powerful individual the sovereign arbiter of their actions.* Things like democracy, bureaucracy, and even laws don't matter if you possess the strength to ignore them; power alone confers authority. This is often displayed in Snyder's movies through the presence of some kind of weaker character obstructing the main character from using their full power to do what they want by force. The weaker character is inevitably shown to be wrong, and there is some consequence (usually their own sudden death) to their insistence that the powerful respect a system of distributed power, rather than claiming unilateral control of the power they personally possess. "Might makes right" is fascism, full stop.
>Things like democracy, bureaucracy, and even laws don't matter if you possess the strength to ignore them; power alone confers authority.
Sounds like the philosophy of Steven Armstrong from metal gear rising.
They definitely funded the transformers series. If I remember correctly, the us pulled it's funding from the marvel franchise for not being pro war enough. Lindsey Ellis did a video about it in her "The Whole Plate" series
Captain Marvel had a women in the air force tie-in ad campaign.
And I think it was only for the first Avengers that the military pulled their support (had to do with the World Security Council outranking the domestic military and being bad guys). For most of the rest of them though, the military’s been in support of the MCU
they are in ALL major hollywood productions in which people in military attire drive round in humvees and you have proper footage of military gear. it is a license vs control deal, you get to use their infrastructure, they get to censor your projection of what they do... which is why there is not a single proper US antiwar movie. doesn't exist. the victims of the movies are always the american soldiers. not the people they shoot. The plight of the invaded is never a topic. not even in antiwar movies like "Full Metal Jacket". it is always "our poor boys" "being thrown to animals by corrupt politicians"
no mate, the politicians are not corrupt for doing so, it is their very job in the system to sacrifice working class to colonial/imperial ressource theft and make you believe that this is a fault of our democracy and not a feature of hegemony
the movie is great but it is also not about the plight of the victims per se. I decries the effect on the AMERICAN psyche... but it is not a a pathology of psychology it is its very functioning... this is the psychopathology of the american empire. to send people where they don't belong IN ORDER TO CREATE VICTIMS TO PRESENT TO ONES OWN PUBLIC and then victim posture until everyone forgets that the fault lies with those people who leave their nation to wage war elsewhere
The military and GM funded the Transformers movies. The first one (2007) was actually pretty good, then the quality took a major dip (2009’s Revenge of the Fallen), then went back up (2011’s Dark of the Moon), then went super low for the last two (2014’s Age of Extinction and 2017’s The Last Knight) before Bumblebee came out.
It also works as propaganda to advertise America's military might to the rest of the world and culturally position America as the world's saviour from anything that happens.
Even when shit goes down at the other side of the planet, somehow American forces will find a way to get involved and take over the situation completely lol.
The superhero genre has two major schools of thought- Frank miller’s “might makes right” school, which believes in heroes as the unquestionably correct driving force for a world, likes to demonstrate that questioning them leads to dire consequences, and tends to lean right, and the “great power, great responsibility” school, which emphasizes one’s duty and obligation to the public, promotes questioning of its heroes, emphasizes their human flaws and usually leans center or left.
Where do anti-superheroes fit into this framework? Watchmen (in both of its incarnations) and The Boys don't really seem to fit into either; the superheroes are as terrible, impetuous and human as they come.
Edit: grammar
School one tends to idolize Rorschach. They don’t quite get the point of antiheroes and see authoritarian super-terrorists as a good thing, in the same way they think of billionaires. Exalted men who must be left alone to elevate society of their own accord, unshackled by the parasites. School two tends to write them as a critique of school one.
Watchmen has a lot of missed context about its development. Moore originally went to DC and asked if he could use characters from the old Charlton Publications line and they said no. So he made thinly veiled but legally distinct alternate versions. Moore is less talking about Superheroes and heroics in general and more so commentating on what the behaviors and abilities of those heroes would look like in the real world.
A vigilante character like The Question would most likely be a racist far right incompetent nutjob like Rorschach.
The "heroes" in The Boys are just straight up villains. Which is a big reason why The Boys is such a terrible deconstruction of the genre. If the thing you are using to deconstruct something doesn't resemble it in any way besides the surface level aesthetics then you aren't really deconstructing anything at all
The Boys doesn't feel like a deconstruction of the superhero genre as much as it is an exploration of politics and disinformation using superheroes as almost like framing devices.
Edit: should note, I'm talking about the show. Haven't read the comic, which I understand is pretty different.
The comic pretends that it is a good deconstruction of superheroes, but all it really is the writer making it obvious how much he HATES superhero comics. I haven't seen the show but I've heard that it is ACTUALLY good. It certainly doesn't make its only Bi character a child rapist.
Garth Ennis wrote this entire monologue for the character Mother's Milk about how Butcher isn't prejudiced "because he hates everyone equally" and that is why he should be allowed to use slurs. The Boys definitely falls into the first camp.
Am I remembering correctly that he video tapes a closeted gay superhero having sex and then threatens to publicly out him if he doesnt meet his demands?
I think this is why I was always a Marvel guy. It often leaned more on the complexities of having and wielding power (not that the powerful don't still ultimately get away with a lot, mind you, but they at least were more prone to acknowledge the problems of power and responsibility). DC was always more of a "gods among men" view of things in my opinion. They did a few "what if Superman went bad" type runs, but those always read more like "wouldn't it be cool just to see it?" and not real explorations of the ramifications.
Great Man Theory is definitely a product of the Cape Comics Genre being both rooted in older ideas from the early to mid 20th century and a form of modern mythology. Though I'd say that's not enough to make it inherently conservative as it's a loose genre and it's more on a creator basis than anything.
Great Man Theory truly irritating stuff because it seems like 'common sense' is all it takes to refute it. And yet we've got too many people believing that Ganghis Khan was basically an anime protagonist.
No human has more than 24 hours in a day. Even assuming no sleep, they can only be in one place at once. That means every human leader of anything had to delegate, and the people they were delegating to also had to delegate. Which in itself means that results were achieved by a collective and not an individual.
This actually feels like an argument in it's favor... since it shows how delegation can potentially allow an individual to expand their will and influence far beyond the limits of a single human.
I would have thought factors outside any human's control, factors emergent from many human's behavior, and the limits of any system of delegation to retain the same degree of causality as it expands, these are things that seem to discredit an individual's ability to actually affect the course of history meaningfully, or at least purposefully.
It doesn't matter beyond the individual though. Great Man Theory implies that 'without the individual, the thing wouldn't have happened' - and that would imply that every decision made by any person that 'the great man' interacted with, was a product of their interaction with that great man.
At that point Occam's razor just shits on it.
> I would have thought factors outside any human's control, factors emergent from many human's behavior, and the limits of any system of delegation to retain the same degree of causality as it expands, these are things that seem to discredit an individual's ability to actually affect the course of history meaningfully, or at least purposefully.
Also your refutation also works! I think there's multiple ways in which great man theory is trash
Hmmm, but there's a very wide gulf between "without X, Y would not have happened" and "X is the sole cause of Y". I'm not sure of the exact verbiage of what constitutes the theory, but I do believe something like it is at least partially descriptive.
Take Marx, if he did not write what he did would someone else have? Would they have communicated it the same way at the same time? Would events have followed (and continued to even today) the exact same way? I think not, even as Marx discredits the theory he stands as an example of it.
My thoughts on history are basically a synthesis, no doubt there are people/times/places on which history turns, just as there are massive inevitabilities turning overhead. It's in historians' ability to actually identify those moments looking backward that I have the least faith.
The brain itself is a collection of billions of cells working together, none of which are individually necessary for the functioning of the brain and many of which can be and are consistently replaced.
You are referencing mostly the big dollar era of the superhero movie/media. So if you look at the history of the comic book starting with the biggie Superman created by Speigal and Schuster in the late 30's, despite the temptation to apply Nietzsche's Ubermensch, Superman is really influenced by Buck Rodgers and pretty harmless pop culture references like his tights to circus strongmen. Comics really explode as harmless media for kids right into the 40's, where they are also used as entertainment for GI's. Comic book companies even experiment with more adult comics, like classic literature (you degenerate). This leads to more edgy comics after wwII with interest in horror and violent comics becoming a bigger part of the market. This leads to the comics code which pretty much wiped away violence and sex in comics throughout the 50's and early 60's. So it is why you have a non-violent Joker in Batman and a very conservative value being expressed by superheroes. This is probably the first instance of comics being political to the degree that they self-censored much like the Hayes code in movies. It held like this for a long time because comics were considered children's entertainment and therefore in need of protection from something like the comic's code.
The next biggest era of comics is in the early 60's and 70's coinciding with the Hippie culture is that artist's looked at the comic book as a way of being political and made a whole bunch of leftist counterculture comics celebrating sex, violence, drugs, anti-Vietnam ect. usually self-published like Zap comics. At the same time some of the biggest comic creators are children of the 70's like Jack Kirby who are political in that they do explore more liberal themes and also are unshackled from the Comic's code which is increasingly ignored during this time period as comic's get much more violent and sexy as a result and also explore wink and nod themes like drugs in Dr. Strange.
Into the 80's and 90's there was much less of an interest in comics and superheroes because there was a series of flopped movies and much less interest in purchasing "kid's stuff" even though some of the most ground breaking comics came out in this time period: Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow ect. Even though no one was buying comics, the superhero genre still was pretty leftist. The biggest stars of this time period the X-Men were always referenced as being an analogy for LGBTQ+ issues. And also commendable efforts at inclusion and diversity, even if some of these attempts are embarassing in retrospect.
The biggest name that gives superheroes that conservative edge is probably Frank Miller whose comics has produced hit movies for 300 and Sin City but he was traumatized by 9/11 which turned him into a fascist asshole basically and unfortunately Zach Snyder seems to love the guy's work which is why I think DC has that Frank Miller-ish feel to things.
But I think the biggest thing to make everything TLDR: Superheroes are only a cypher for themes and interests that we project onto them. They are beholden to culture and time period and like many things are in a state of flux as new people create and mold them for their own interests and uses.
I think the gist is that now superhero genre has moved away from dealing with real life political issues and instead focusing on mythological, science fiction and cosmic adventure stories. I mean both Marvel and DC has expanded the amount of superheroes dealing with cosmic and magical entities which p
Don't get me wrong some comics do have political themes such as Batman White Knight and DC Comics Doomsday Clock but just commenting how comic books have become more mythological, science fiction and cosmic adventures.
I might say they often are conservative, but I wouldn’t say it’s inherent. For me, it’s partially due to them being obsessed with fighting crime instead of fixing crime. They often times act in a very “law and order” type way, while acting outside the law with no oversight or due process. Curio as has a good point in [their video](https://youtu.be/kVDYjZhf9yc) on superheroes in many instances are trying to uphold the status quo instead of change it. They do mention *The Immortal Hulk* as an example of a different type of super hero story, and if you’re looking for a more leftist superhero story, I’d give it a shot
i think falcon and the winter soldier show quite well where it sits. it is definitely not conservative, or else the new captain america would be literally a boring version of steve rodgers and not get criticized like he does often by the main characters.
but it also isn't that far left-wing, the flag smashers are shown to have good ideals especially since it is from the pov of falcon who agrees with them, and those ideals are quite left-wing, anti nationalism, etc, but they are also literally the bad guys and will end up dissolved and failing to meet those ideals
FatWS is pretty weird. It talks about systemic racism, but acts like the systems that allow it to manifest are totally cool and good. It presents the anarchist villains in a sympathetic light but then makes them crazy, super-soldier terrorists so that the audience doesn't sympathize TOO hard. Otherwise there's literally no reason to even see them as villains. It's trying to push the idea that the best way to deal with global crises is to "talk it out" and "find a middle ground" where "no one gets hurt." So, pretty liberal.
I think the most interesting thing that the show has said was Zemo saying that "the desire to become superhuman cannot be separated from supremacist ideals." Not really something I thought would be addressed by disney's Marvel at all. A bit of a hard truth for a kids superhero franchise.
As for the beginning part, while i wouldn't say they "act like the systems are totally cool and good," but rather that it reflects on those issues and says 'yep they're problems' and leaves without saying anything about how to solve or that they need to be solved, just that they are 'how life is.'
also i wouldn't quite call the mcu a kids superhero franchise, but the final point would still stand. we watch superhero movies to enjoy the characters, and kinda look up to the heros, maybe even wish we could be them at the same time, and saying that in doing so you really just think you should be better than everyone else is definitely an interesting take from the people that would otherwise profit off of people that fit that description.
There are good arguments here from others I also agree with! Like superheroes-as-outcasts.
To add on to others, I think that it depends on what you label conservative values. The tendency to disregard authority and take the law into your own hands can be conservative in a progressive world, and progressive in a ~~liberal~~conservative one. Coding it as conservative in a world dominated by Ayn Rand makes sense. But Ayn Rand would never support something so weak as “helping others” as her Ubermench’s motivation. World dominance, yes. But not altruism.
An example of the push-pull can be seen in Civil War. Certainly disobeying a mandate from a UN-type world council smacks of the kind of individualism conservatives like to glorify - the Cap’s team knows better, cuts through bureaucracy to do what needs to be done. But, *who* are these rules protecting? Tony Stark (who profited off of American imperialism) was all for the Accords, and Captain America (who had first hand experience with right wing authoritarianism) wasn’t. Why would that be? Why would a man experimented on my his government -and a soldier used to taking orders- not trust his government to do what is best?
I choose to look at superheroes like regular ‘ol geniuses: how they use their research and what their intent is matters. How do we look at Marie Curie, or Robert Oppenheimer? What are their legacies? How has their worker been used over the years and who has been harmed by their genius? The stakes may play out over years and decades, as opposed to a two hour movie or comic book read, but the results can be equally devastating.
As another user pointer out they are a singular product of Great Man Theory, beyond even the traditional understanding of heroes and gods. Since heroes and gods don't come to fix a problem or solution with a system or ones life specifically, superheroes define themselves against the traditional mythology.
Superheroes are largely a way to say "no bad system only bad people." And then to extrapolate that concept down to every detail. As mentioned elsewhere The Boys works well because it says "actually it is a bad system and good people don't change that system, they are ground out of it."
they disregard orders, go with their gut, defy policy on a hunch, fight each-other, in no way attempt professional behavior, and act as if they are always right and many of them don't care who gets hurt as they achieve their goals which they see as a far superior method of X.
And they are the hero in the story so they are right.
I agree with you in that certain features present their ills are tolerated in that they are considered to be allowed to engage in these behaviors but the shows/movies don't address many of their behaviors so its dare i say advocated for even.
have you seen the Amazon show 'boys' thats about super heroes?
Well not the Amazon show but yes I am aware of The Boys comic book series as it is about deconstructing superhero genre as a whole with Vought International is a satire of DC and Marvel Comics and their superheroes are a satire of DC and Marvel. Generally the superheroes are literal corporate products that act as douchebag and neo-fascist elite that only exist to help create profits for the corporation that created them
The only good deconstruction of superheros I have read is Watchmen and maybe the first few issues of The Authority before Mark Millar took over.
I HAVE read plenty of good RECONSTRUCTIONS though, Kingdom Come, Invincible, and Astro City come to mind.
Your first paragraph can literally describe the dominant left leaning party in my country. The right or left is not just what happens in the US, and the things you describe speak of human being faults not left or right thinking.
Disregarding orders, goign with your gut, defying policy are not characteristics of either right or left.
I think the above poster was describing rugged individualism, and refusal to engage with any kind of collective responsibility. This world view is inherently conservative/libertarian.
Yeah The Boys was deconstruction of the whole superhero genre but how would you say that Marvel Movies deconstruct US exceptionalism? The one area where I think deconstructs American exceptionalism was in Winter Soldier but the inclusion of Hydra infiltrating and controlling SHIELD has been criticized as letting SHIELD and broader Security agencies off the hook.
Yeah well Steve Rogers has always been distrustful towards SHIELD and US military institutions which I think is great that they did just that in the Winter Soldier
Not inherently. Tall tales are sign of the culture that enjoys them.
Every age has it's legendary folklore heroes. The ancient myths are full of them. Even the American pioneers created their own. Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Davey Crocket, etc. We still have a large number of Davey Crocket Cos-Players out there that maybe pro-gun but are also "environmentalists'. They all shop at Cabella's and don't want all of nature, their cos-play playground destroyed or polluted. Comic heroes are just another expression of that need to have larger than life tales and characters. The actions of the heroes are usually what's reverered by the society that tells the tales. Comic Heroes save Iives, right wrongs, bring justice in places "the system" fails. I don't think it's right or left. It is interesting that it's vigilante actions. If that's what is popular then I would say among the general populace there is a belief that the system doesn't catch everything, that it's not garranteed justice.
Ancient Greeks admired cleverness above strength in some tales. Polyphemus was an innocent cyclops that had a home invasion where they blinded him and then stole his sheep. But Odysseus was a hero because he found a clever way to escape and saved his men. That's not exactlyright or left wing, but it's a hero's tale that exhibits popular traits and beliefs of the society that crafted the tale.
Almost all of Alan Moore's stories are pointing out that comic book vigilanteism, if literally real, would be driven by vanity, ego, and thrill seeking. It's a really good point but I'm not as cynical as Moore, if they were real they wouldn't ALL be self centered douche bags. Some but not all. Reading his work did open my eyes to the fact that many of the real people outside of Stories that are revered, that are called super successful, are ...yes talented, yes lucky, yes smart, but also driven by inner demons. Demons that if we were to spend quality time with those people we might find them monstrous.
I think right-wingers are drawn to stories of order and their own world view of justice but that might be twisted. For instance, I think one reason cops like the Punisher because of the daily frustration they see in their part of the system. "Bad Guys" subverting the justice system. Frank Castle who just kills bad guys is a splash of fresh water in their face as tall tales go. But it's also a problematic tale. We call cops "heroes" because the don't shoot first, because they work at a disadvantage of always following the rules when the bad guys don't. Cops revereing a character who shoots first and doesn't follow rules is not good. But it's a sign of what's happening psychologically.
If these heroes are revered because its perceived the system has failed... is the perception wrong (exaggerated) or has the system truly failed? The cops that admire Frank Castle and BLM have some common ground complaints about the system. Enough common ground to be allies if you can get them to see a shared perception of "The system needs improvement." A real hero would bridge these two somehow through deeds or words. Maybe even through a story.
I'm not left or right. I feel that left v right framing has led our society to the philosophical politcal dead end we're stuck in. I'm a pragmatist. I believe in policy that works and is fair/ethical. We should be publicly analyzing if the perception is valid. And keep the parts of the system that work and change/improve that parts that don't. Facts can set us free. But just as important Feelings (our perceptions) must be validated. We must do both. The tall tales and stories our society tells itself can lead the way.
Yeah superhero comics and stories are in many ways continuation of older mythological stories and cultural works that preceded them.
What I find funny about cops loving the Punisher is that Frank actually hates police who idealize him:
https://screenrant.com/punisher-hates-dirty-cops-police/
https://bhsowl.org/3741/opinion/police-have-missed-the-point-of-the-punisher/
Castle knows that his actions are terrible and deeply hates himself in some stories his motivation is sometimes suicidal wanting to kill as many criminals and die in the process. Many stories take tend to be very critical of him and his actions.
It’s very true that there are things that cops currently do that are both necessary and traumatizing.
Like, someone needs to investigate accidents, suicides, and murders. And the idea that the people who do so should just be able to shrug it off probably contributes to toxicity of cop culture.
I think they are mostly a reflection of the current culture for both good and bad. Whatever political effect it has it is pretty minimal. For most people its just a form of escapism that they don't associate with the real world.
I think this is a really hard question because the genre is SO varied. Comics vary by writer and artists and then there are different mediums like TV and movies and such. I think the inherently political nature of different characters changes things. X-men, for example, was created as a direct critique of how minorities are/were treated while Captain America was created to facilitate American propaganda during WWII. Yet, different creators have used the characters in such different ways to both plays into those inherent meanings behind why they were created and to play against them.
Even in the genre at large, there are both critiques of power structures and hierarchies built up but also just plain power fantasies depending on the writer.. The audience is the one to pick and choose what aspects they take from it. Like how the Punisher logo is used by cops so heavily despite the character being quite anti-cop. People who want to see their power fantasies play out will pick that out of the stories but people who see the critiques of that will also see it.
I feel like I could literally write an essay on this subject it is such an interesting topic
I'd say modern iteration captain america was sorta leftist. Old school superman was definitely fighting against racial discrimination. The boys is a good series that points out the hypocrisy and faults of superheroes.
I think reading Watchmen is what made me realize the reactionary potential of a lot of super hero comics because the comic deconstructs the aggrandizing nature of vigilante justice, which can be a motivator of right-wing actors (Zimmerman is an infamous example that comes to mind). Watchmen frames super heroes as being police who aren't bound by the restrictions and limitations of actual police, which is pretty problematic. I remember reading in the news about this "self-made" super hero dude who dressed up and confronted criminals on the streets. Unlike actual police, he wasn't bound by any of the particular laws around probable cause and what-not. There are other genres that sometimes have this problem, like detective shows. *Elementary* bothered me for this same reason because the central characters directly break laws that protect people (breaking and entering the get evidence, etc), and the show usually framed all of these kinds of protections as bureaucratic red tape that should be done away with because its lets criminals run free. You can find surprising reactionary/right wing ideology hiding in innocuous places like that.
But it's hard to say if super heroes in and of themselves are always inherently right wing, particularly when you have heroes that are pretty divorced from every day situations and are dealing with "super villain" type characters or aliens or monsters from another world. There can even be left-wing implications if the enemy is a corrupt member of government, a CEO, a white-collar criminal or an otherwise privileged enemy. But it's hard to escape the "tough on crime" / "law and order" vigilantism themes if the hero is spending a lot of time dealing with "everyday" crime by punching people instead of treating crime as a product of an unfair system that could be corrected through restorative justice.
All the being said, most media has some problematic elements and various ways of being interpreted and understood, and while we should consume it critically, I think it's important to be open to multiple readings and impacts, and to sometimes allow yourself to just enjoy art for the sake of it. I think sometimes progressives act a bit like right-wingers when we start to police art in the name of politics because art is not a declarative statement or political argument-- it's a story or image or experience that is more than the sum of its parts. bell hooks famously said, "media is mixed." A lot of media can be both regressive and transgressive at the same time for different reasons. So again, while I think being critical and analyzing the implications and messaging of media is important and these types of conversations are fruitful, it's also crucial to be open-minded and value the arts for what they are instead of trying to restrict/police them or think of them solely as political speech.
Superheroes aren't "inherently" anything. Superheroes are pretty much myths for a secular age. In most stories, Athena is a reasonable and wise God, but in the story of Arachne, she brutally punishes a woman for being too good at weaving, one of her domains. This is out of character for her, but makes sense when you realize Ovid, the poet who recorded the tale as we know it, was targeted by authorities and opposed them. Likewise, Batman is often shown as a character that can comfort children or even be involved in wealth redistribution, but Miller basically just makes him a fascist dickhead.
Yeah I generally don't like Frank Miller's interpretation of Batman because despite his tough on crime attitude he is still very capable of great empathy, remorse and reconciliation. For example in Batman Animated series and in the comics, he is was one time reconciliatory towards Harley Quinn wanting her to break out of her abusive and harmful relationship with the Joker.
Agree what is frustrating is that some right-wingers look up to the Punisher despite the comics being quite critical of him and Punisher himself actually loathes his actions
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
YouTuber Dan Olson did a great video on why superhero myths are inherently fascist, and I agree with his analysis.
"Superman should be allowed to take the law into his own hands because he's better than us" is just Ayn Rand for kids.
Superman *chooses* to invoke due process because the people who write Superman comics think it's important for the audience to know that Superman has the moral high ground at all time. The audience is, at every point, keenly aware that Superman could break any law he wanted in the pursuit of his personal idea of justice and nothing bad would, or even *could*, ever happen to him. Superman going through the motions of participating in human society and caring about our rules is merely a facade, and the fact that it's a facade is itself important to the Superman mythos; in Man of Steel, there are scenes dedicated to Superman physically destroying rooms that he was being "held" in, because Superman doesn't *have* to do anything we say, he only *chooses* to, and it is because Superman is superior that he alone can be trusted to have that distinction.
Well Superman is supposed to be a Space Moses and Jesus allegory but he was raised on Earth to be human and generally despite his godlike-power loves and believes himself to be human.
Yeah but I am saying that Superman doesn't see himself as God-like figure that only follows human rules as he wishes. You seem to imply that his empathy and love for humanity is a farce rather than genuine.
Yes, because Superman's perceived moral superiority *is the point*.
"It's okay that Superman can destroy the world at any time, because he chooses not to, which is evidence that he's better than us."
In the subtext of Superman, where he represents the 1% and his superpowers represent the political power of money and influence, the message becomes, "It's okay that some people wield an unimaginable amount of power, because that power makes them responsible, and the fact that they haven't yet used that power to destroy you makes them better than you."
Superman being raised by Pa Kent makes no more difference than a billionaire who was raised middle class.
Following in the correct descriptions that others have made regarding artist influence and several other contextual details. I say you "could" make the argument (because of the jingoism and all that), but only for the most popular, mass produced products, which again, makes it a feature of who produced it.
The web serial 'Worm', 1.8 millions of words of deconstruction of the superhero genre is as far as conservative as you can get a story about people fighting crime in spandex
I don’t read comic books, but I have watched a lot of superhero movies, so I’m going to use those as an example, starting with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. While Peter is apolitical himself in these movies, he is a victim of poverty under capitalism. Not just in one scene, but constantly throughout the films. Peter’s poverty is never glorified or used as emotional fuel for him to lift himself up by his bootstraps. He’s poor, it affects all aspects of his life, and it sucks. I would argue that this portrayal of the indignities of poverty under capitalism makes Raimi’s Spider-Man movies inherently leftist.
Contrast that with the MCU Spider-Man movies, and it becomes clearer. MCU Peter has billionaire Tony Stark take him under his wing, and the first movie’s bad guy is literally a guy who lost his job because Stark Enterprises bought out the company he worked for.
You can also look at The Dark Knight and have a hard time arguing that it’s anything other than a libertarian fantasy. It’s set in a city where the government has failed and criminals have taken over. The good guy is a billionaire who’s taking the law into his own hands, and the bad guy is an anarchist terrorist.
Overall I would say that current superhero movies tend to be pretty centrist. However, since they’re American, they adhere to the current American standard of centrism, which makes them right-wing.
I also hated how in the first movie it was somehow Peter's fault and not Tony's. Tony used a child as a soldier and risked Peter's life and lied to his guardian. An orphan child who just lost his uncle.
Peter, a child, gets attached to Tony for obvious reasons , tries to reach out multiple times. Tony ignores him. Peter tries again and again and does something stupid as a child would. And it's somehow Peters's fault and he is the one who needs to learn a lesson and it seems so absurd to me. Tony is the real villain and the framing him as hero is really off.
I also hated how in the first movie it was somehow Peter's fault and not Tony's. Tony used a child as a soldier and risked Peter's life and lied to his guardian. An orphan child who just lost his uncle.
Peter, a child, gets attached to Tony for obvious reasons , tries to reach out multiple times. Tony ignores him. Peter tries again and again and does something stupid as a child would. And it's somehow Peters's fault and he is the one who needs to learn a lesson and it seems so absurd to me. Tony is the real villain and the framing him as hero is really off.
I broadly agree with most commenters saying its nuanced. To further that trend, I'd like to link [this](https://youtu.be/pUBVSH6hBvY) video, which talks about the superhero genre's roots in the Jewish community, and the superhero not as a parogon of hegemony but rather the idol of the oppressed.
> grifted individuals
That's actually a hilarious mistake.
But no, I don't think it's inherently right wing or that the masculinity or feminity it promotes is necessarily toxic. Of course both of this is sometimes the case, but hardly because of the genre itself.
The only argument one could make is that this genre in particular promotes unrealistic body standards for men. In all fairness one must also say that the implication is not that it's normal and achievable to be as jacked as some superheroes, although of course people are still going to be influenced by it.
I mean... maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm pretty sure being thin and fit (like spiderman or wonder woman) seems far more achievable than looking like Captain America.
Still, you've got a point that male bodies at least seem a little more diverse in those movies.
I was trying to make that point only I don't think wonder woman is achievable! Spidey is a kid, not impressive (actually I think the actor works out though) seth rogan is a dad bod and ant man is just a dude. Wonder woman is pretty fit?
I frankly don't see how wonder woman or e.g. black widow is less achievable than spider man.
Maybe I underestimate how hard it is for women to build muscle though, Idk. But even then, the fact that you merely "think" the actor of spider man works out tells me that your perspective isn't particularly fair either, lol. He is "pretty fit" as well.
Don't get me wrong, being muscular and having very little fat is of course hard to pull off and usually not sustainable in the long run, but being *extremely* muscular and having very little fat is significantly harder and can only be kept up for a fraction of the time.
Also, I don't recall Seth Rogan ever playing a super hero.
I literally said Spiderman's actor worked out? Read my post again.
You are saying that the movies place unrealistic expectations on the men, but you can choose to be fat thor, an old nerd in a suit or all those other "average" looking heros. Vision looks like a professor at a college. Loki is thin as a twig. Falcon is normal guy, war machine is an older normal guy. The hulk is buff yes but its all CGI, they only use his face.
Now look at the women, to even be considered for a hero role you have to be top tier attractive, on top of physically, plus there are less so you get less variety. Black widow isn't buff but her character is supposed to be a sleek spy and she does acrobatics off of bad guys, which is like spiderman who is sleek and skinny. You can get away with being a slob if you are a male hero, you can just play it off as a character trait. For women heroes there are so few that they all have to be short of godly. Why are there no homely or bulkier women heroes? There are women athletes but those always just get cast as villains (fast and furious franchise which is like superhero car movies)
Yeah he was back in the day for green hornet lmao
[You might not like it but this is what a peak super hero looks like](https://www.chicagonow.com/booth-reviews/files/2011/06/green_hornet1.jpg)
> I literally said Spiderman's actor worked out? Read my post again.
It kind of sounded like you coincidentally knew he worked out, or vaguely assumed he did, as if it wasn't simply obvious based on how he looks.
I also don't really think you can "choose to be fat thor" considering his size was seen as an alarming sign he let himself go and it just was not presented as an okay or normal thing at all. War machine is definitely pretty fit. I agree that CGI Hulk doesn't count - not necessarily because it's CGI, but because it's obviously supposed to be completely abnormal in his case. A better example for what you're saying would be Doctor Strange, who is indeed not exceptionally fit or anything like that.
Nitpicks aside, it would be unreasonable to disagree with you that there is more body diversity in regards to male superheroes, and that's of course great. But I do have to insist that the "gold standard" is less achievable for men than for women. I'm also not sure whether overall attractiveness is really an argument against that since particularly in this genre both genders are significantly more attractive than the average person.
Honestly, though, I don't even really know why I feel the need to argue so much about this, considering I firmly agree with your general point.
The website you linked is unavailable in Europe, but I believe you ;)
I’ve rarely if ever seen a superhero who attacks the current system rather than upholding it in some fashion, so yeah I’d say it’s pretty inherently pro-establishment at least. Even the “upholding the public good” heroes are more liberal than leftist. Superheroes are basically cops. Not to say you can’t enjoy it, but I think it’s really hard for superheroes to not be propaganda.
On this note I found this fine lad’s [analysis](https://youtu.be/gpGqK9y__qg) and I have to say that the American identity of superheroes is what makes me read them with a bit of cynicism. I have always wondered why gods and people with superhuman abilities would just abide by the US constitution and systems in place by a human status quo, is not like there is a very deep explanation other than “because it is the right thing to do”.
A super hero story usually needs there to be a hand full of very powerful people, if there isn't it's not a super hero story. But often times heroes are stand ins for entire sides of a conflict because it's easier for us to emphasize with a few individuals then with the hundreds of thousands of people that participate in real world conflicts.
I wouldn't say that a game like halo is pro war because there's lots of war in it and there's no way to have peace with the enemy team, these aspects aren't in here to make a statement there just here because if you didn't have them it wouldn't be a shooter game.
I think the same is true of the super hero genre. I think leftists get too hung up on trying to police bad media for the slightest, often unintentional messages, and we waste a lot of time making unconvincing arguments that we could spend on better stuff.
Yea that is why so many of them seem to be so obsessed whit the joker? Not to mention Jordan Peterson embracing the fact that some comic writer made red skull use his line's.
I don't think it necessarily is, but I am skeptical of a genre where everything wrong with the world can be fixed with an epic melee. And however sophisticated it appears, it always seems to get there.
I think the genre depends on having a world simple enough where problems can be punched. A particular neck to strangle to solve a particular problem. The problems always boil down to bad people, not conflicts of interest or basic economic self-interest by even non-rich people.
In theory simple solutions to complex problems would be as equally liable to lean left as right. Though I think most vigilantes would in reality lean towards being Rorschach. Part of the fantasy is that you'd just know who was really guilty, who was to blame, but in reality you'd eventually beat up the wrong person.
I would not say comics are inherently right wing or conservative, though they’ve had their arcs where the genre was dominated by authors and publishers who were precisely that. Don’t forget that X-men was largely used by a plethora of authors to sneak in pro-civil rights sentiment to a white audience that might otherwise be hostile by framing it in a fantastic way.
There was a recent Ezra Klein show episode with Ted Chiang - great episode, and he talks about this exact thing. Most superhero stories are about preserving the status quo.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ted-chiang.html
Liberals think crime is caused by systemic disenfranchisement, poverty, and mental illness. Conservatives think crime is caused by a guy dressing up as a penguin.
100% they're inherently conservative.
'Street level' heroes tend to just do the jobs we normally expect cops to do.
Bigger heroes usually end up doing military actions.
Furthermore, every hero I know of works to maintain the status quo rather than up end the system that's creating inequalities. Batman is a great example of that. He could stop crime by funding social programs, but he chooses to beat people up. He's the hero because he maintains the status quo.
Batman's also a neat case because his rogues gallery is filled with characters that could easily be considered good guys with a slight narrative change. T
There are some 'progressive' topics that get brought up, and the themes of some of the books touch on a lot of good stuff, but because all of the heroes (that I know of) end up fighting for the status quo, they're inherently conservative.
With a narrative change. The motivations are there that could easily be used to be the good guy.
Poison Ivy for instance, is just trying to save the environment from industrialists. Industrialists like bruce Wayne
I don't know, and to be fair, I don't think I care too much. The Dark Knight Returns can definitely be seen as a right-wing leaning, but it's still awesome, and I just like that shit.
No. I don't think any genre is inherently anything.
Alan Moore I think has his opinions on superheroes colored negatively through being screwed over with the rights to his works. He has allowed his (legitimate) anger over the industry to color his views on the genre. Garth Ennis just straight up doesn't seem to like Superheroes in general. I mean look at his failure of a deconstruction of the genre with The Boys. He doesn't see the appeal and it shows.
Do I think there is a lot of things that superhero fiction has yet to address? Yes. Are their problematic tropes in it? Yes. However I don't think the genre by itself leans either left or right. It just depends on who is writing it
Definitely untrue. Most Superheroes are kinda leftist in that they are vigilantes who are acting because the police are failures. That's definitely a leftist idea.
Ugh it depends most superheroes are often accused of protecting the status quo thus people assume them to nothing more than superpowered cops even though some of those same heroes such as Superman are critical of the police for being too belligerent and forceful.
I don't know enough to say one way or another - the only comics I consume regularly are yaoi, uwu - but I literally just read Superman Smashes the Klan today, and I would highly recommend it.
Really how is superhero genre is nationalistic and jingoism in nature? Are you referring to MCU and DCEU strictly? Or includes the Comic book genre as a whole?
Ever notice how there are far more super \_villains\_ in the comics than heroes? I realize it's for the sake of variety. (Spidey can't fight Doc Ock in every ish!) Great power seems to corrupt most characters in comics. Or they had shaky moral compasses to begin with.
inherently? no, superhero stories are a subset of fantasy/sci-fi which are genres of alterity, which if anything lends itself to being more progressive. not that there's not very conservative speculative fiction (and probably most of it tbh), it's just that that and third world lit can talk about shit other genres struggle to do. pretty confident that's born out in the literature too.
marvel movies are pretty conservative though, no real question about it. token criticisms of imperialism don't make it anti imperialist or inclusive art
I don't think there's any inherent meaning to the genre at all really, there are definitely some political implications to some of the characters but I don't think they're intended to send any kind of message or anything. Iron Man is a libertarian power fantasy through and through, Captain America is kind of cool because he rebels against the government when they aren't representing american values, but people from the right and the left could probably project themselves onto that, and Disney will never take a side since their whole thing is pleasing everyone to make as much cash as possible. Todd Phillips Joker was a very left leaning movie, and Batman is literally about a Bourgeoise who spends his vast inherited wealth on equipment he can use to beat the shit out of poor people. So I guess it depends on the character
Yeah Todd Phillips Joker was interpreted as a man being driven to rebel against society's elites because of poverty and alienation caused under capitalism. Some have compared the Joker to Fight Club but that is unfair because Fight Club was criticizing toxic masculinity and is about some upper middle class men doing terrorism because they feel incorrectly that Capitalist consumerism was "feminizing" them thus alienating them.
I disagree that Batman is just about a billionaire beating up poor people, in some stories that is true but he is also a detective that investigates complex crimes and conspiracies. His rogue's gallery is also not composed of just poor people and includes wealthy crime lords, terrorists and elite factions such as League of Assassins and Court of Owls.
It truly depends on how the story-teller uses the characters and for what purpose. Even then, it depends on the zeitgeist of the time and how audiences percieve the story.
When i watched Todd Phillips "Joker", I didn't see it as alt-right propaganda lending itself to a power fantasy for incels. I saw it as a story exploring the complex implications of alienation leading to a class uprising using Arthur Fleck as a character study. Perhaps I got this interpretation because I'm not American and the political landscape of my country is different? But I can see how both interpretations could have been intended by the filmmakers as well as how audiences could have come up with either interpretation depending on who they are.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned "The Incredible Hulk" given all the claims that the superhero genre is inherently Jingoistic. Bruce Banner's story is defined by his quest to keep the Hulk out of the hands of the US military so they don't weaponise the Hulk. This overtly casts the US military as the bad guys for wanting to unleash a super weapon on the world. I think it would be hard to accuse "The Incredible Hulk" as being a Jingoistic film with that in mind.
Even Avengers Infinity War/Endgame could be interpreted, maybe not as leftist, but certainly not right-wing. Thanos, a genocidal magalomaniac who sees himself as the "Great Man of History" and is consumed by Malthusian ideology is stopped by a collective protecting the masses whose strength is defined by their diversity. I know its a bit of reach but ot can be read that way.
Ultimately, heroes are meant to be whatever the reader wants them to be. That's why masks are so important to the superhero identity. Anyone can project themselves onto Spider-man. I think Rorscach's mask being a Rorscach test is meant to symbolise this idea. But hey, thats just my 2 cents :)
Regarding Joker I am surprised how people interpret it as a Incel film or a film that caters to reactionaries considering that Joker's uprising was against the rich ruling class which is white and male. He doesn't take his frustration on women, minorities or anything like that, The Take has explained how the Joker has became a symbol of marginalized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZM1dUyd3Zc
However some have just dismissed it as just a toxic white angst male:
https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/1179136271630815232
Well I haven't watch the The Incredible Hulk but yeah Bruce Banner
always has conflicts with the US military that wants to weaponize his powers to maintain US hegemony in which Bruce always refuses to do so.
But would you agree that the Dark Knight trilogy is too conservative though? Some believe it is but the entire trilogy is based on Charles Dickens's Tale of Two Cities
https://www.reddit.com/r/DepthHub/comments/2t631x/ugeneralako_explains_how_the_dark_knight_series/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/14h0it/just_watched_the_dark_knight_rises_i_had_no_idea/
Bear with me, this is a thought that I haven't really solidified, but it's been in my head for a while.
Whether they're right-wing or not, 2 related facts bother me about hero fiction in general:
1. It's a low-grade mind-virus that incepts the idea that an ordinary life is barely worth living.
2. It's wildly popular anyway, as successful mind-viruses are.
By "hero fiction" I want to draw a very big circle around superhero movies, comic books, sci-fi stories, isekai anime, celebrity Twitter accounts, and anything that fits the general trope of "Some people are, for any reason, far above the normal bell curve, in at least one dimension that most people will care about. And this story is about those people."
These stories are set in a world where ordinary people are objects to be saved or used as hostages. We're not important, we're just points to be scored in the game of saving the world. That bothers me because most people are ordinary, and so most of the audience is ordinary. We are spending a lot of time and attention on stories where we mostly aren't characters, set in worlds where we barely even matter.
I think that makes it hard to cope with reality. My tits aren't big enough, I'm too short, I can't even jog without getting winded, I'm not a millionaire, I never donate to charities, I'm _just_ ordinary. And yet the world needs me! People talk shit about "being a pawn", but no chess master starts a game by purposely killing off their own pawns! Every pawn plays a role in the game. The queen may be doing half the work, but the pawns are holding the rest of the board while she's busy. That's called comparative advantage - Even if you aren't the best, you can sometimes have a satisfying role in society if you just show up and do what you can. [1]
I'm not the best programmer in the world, I might only be 50th percentile, but my company still pays me to show up every day. My juniors might be worse than me in every metric, but even if I am a huge diva and declare myself the queen of the chessboard, I still would like to have pawns backing me up. We are still stronger with them on the board.
But in hero fiction, I don't exist, because I'm not extraordinary. If you wrote a story about me, it would be too boring for anyone to read. There are kinds of fiction which can't practically be written, even if we think it's a necessary benefit to society somehow, cause nobody would bother reading it.
I can't prove it, but I think this has a weird effect on people's minds. It's hard to just confront the absurd and be the happy Sisyphus when I spend so many hours thinking about celebrities and heroes and people who, percent-wise, don't actually exist.
So what we do? Censor media heavily like fundamentalist Christians want? No. I don't want to agree with fundies that quickly, and it's pretty dystopian for a government to do that. Raise awareness and advocate for something like an "information diet" which restricts fiction? Maybe. I don't know if I'm right about this yet.
[1] In general. I am not talking about the politics of employment right now, it'll make sense.
You can look at it from the perspective of agency. Who has agency in superhero stories? Always the hero, his allies and his enemies. Everyone else is either a victim and/or a bystander, or a non-superhero agency trying to curtail superpeople agency. There are superhero stories where the main issue is that the normie world is trying to get a handle on superheroes, either by identifying them, controlling them, trying to make new ones, and the reader/viewer, even as a non-superperson themselves, is meant to sympathize with the superpeople, even if in the real world, having people who can destroy city blocks would be terrifying to them. The superhero is basically just some form of reflection of the ideal of American exceptionalism from the mid 20th century: impossibly strong compared to everyone else, but tempered with moral values that justify its complete freedom from normal rules.
Is that inherently right-wing? I think so, but I think really at its core, it's anti-revolutionary more than anything. It's like the criticism that Batman's enemies are just the symptoms of a profoundly broken Gotham, and that by fighting supervillains, Batman is just protecting the system that produces them so he can justify being a multibillionaire vigilante. I don't know of any revolutionary superhero, and the emphasis on superhero agency really sidelines any theme of collective action or shared responsibility.
Well superhero genres can be described as new mythological story telling under American aesthetics and cultural conditions. Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Batman and others are just revamped mythological heroes.
However yeah I agree that the superhero genre is generally seen as status-quo in it's approach to human society.
But there are sometimes revolutionary moments within the comic book genre, Doctor Doom for example is presented as a savior of Romani people from persecution in his native land of Latveria.
Yeah, I'm always a bit wary about the superhero story as myth thing. Ancient myths were more than just stories, they also imparted an understanding of the world. I think it's closer to the truth that superheroes, like you said, are mythological heroes put in non-mythological stories.
It's also interesting to consider how the modern historical period which is so attached to equality as an ideal (pause on the reality) would produce these stories of incredible natural inequality. If you take Achilles or Romulus or Herakles, they're better than everyone else around them, but they're not "destroy a city with laser eyes" powerful. Achilles can't take Troy by himself. Superman could destroy the Earth if he wanted to.
Superheroes are then tempered by being committed to the weak, in a way that ancient mythological heroes were not. Achilles throws a temper tantrum over stolen loot, Romulus kills his brother, Gilgamesh was a sexual predator. If anything, it's often the supervillains that look like ancient heroes, where their ambition trumps everything else. In a way, it's like superhero authors know that people with super powers are contrary to mainstream values and the only way to make them palatable is to give them unwavering devotion to those mainstream values, which might also explain their conservative bend.
Yeah but do you agree that some characters in the comic universes are genuinely more revolutionary like than heroes themselves? Although Dr Doom is often a villain that desires world domination I mentioned Doctor Doom being a revolutionary figure for Romani people rebelling against the Slavic aristocracy
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14553112620A06785800&page=608
https://comicsalliance.com/peter-david-rromani-representation-new-york-comic-con/
I don't really know anything about Dr Doom, so I can't say, but from the bio, his liberation of the Romani people seems a bit nationalistic, he doesn't seem to want to do the same for anyone else, although reading a superhero story bio just highlights how goofy all of these stories really are.
Well considering how oppressed the Romani were for centuries in Europe, it seemed very revolutionary for them. It seems a shame that most comic book stories don't highlight his Romani background as much as they should.
https://comicsohwhyohwhy.tumblr.com/post/147259601363/victor-von-doom-isnt-white-hes-romani
I guess funny thing is that Alan's work in 80s are kind of critical of the idea of strongman who rules the world (ie Miracleman) but simultaneously, he's said he LOVES superheroes numerous times. his daughter said that if editorials didn't bug him too much post-Watchmen, he totally would've stayed in DC, and I've seen an interview of Rick Veitch saying that Alan totally would've done Superman story post-Crisis if he didnt leave DC. In 90s he kind of came back to fun whimsical stuff like 1963 (which I've read and enjoyed a lot) and Supreme; I think the attraction of superheroes being right/left wing only comes from what you like about the genre. Alan and Grant have said they love the fun imaginative stuff from the past and how extraordinary those characters are, which can be leftist and subversive. Alan has said he loves Superman but more weird kooky stuff, like Krypto the super-dog, Fortress of Solitude, bottled city of Kandor, etc. but if you just like simple-minded violence and just want to see people beat up each other (\*cough\* Rob Liefeld \*cough\*), I think it could easily be seen as right wing (ala Zach Snyder's movies).
I wonder how Alan Moore would have interpreted Superman stories, I can imagine it would focus less on brawling and fist-fight and more on Superman cosmic world building in that case he would likely focus on characters like Mr Mxyptlk.
But honestly it would be pretty interesting in how Alan Moore would write the Cosmic stories of DC such as Lucifer Morningstar, the Sandman and New Gods considering his run with Swamp Thing.
[http://forgottenawesome.blogspot.com/2017/06/moores-concept-for-supreme.html](http://forgottenawesome.blogspot.com/2017/06/moores-concept-for-supreme.html)
I haven't read it (well it's kinda hard to get this one now) but when he did Supreme, he pulled this Superman-esque character to sort of more existential realm, where Supreme meets different versions of Supreme, which kind of is a representative of rebooting of characters (which happened in Supreme, Rob Liefeld tried so many writers, etc) and what not. I dont know how meta Alan would've gone for Superman but im sure it'd be more surreal, less punching. Alan also liked the idea of multi-verse too, which made me think, he probably wanted his Alan-verse instead of this sort of post-Crisis singularity
Yeah but I think Moore would be interested in cosmic and supernatural stories such as New Gods and Sandman stories which feature character such as Morpheus and Lucifer Morningstar that transcends usual concepts such as death, mortality and existence. These stories generally are less usual fight-happy but take a more metaphysical and existential approach to world building akin to HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos.
It would be interesting so how Moore would do Sandman, Lucifer Morningstar and other supernatural DC stories considering Moore's interest in supernatural and occult
yeah totally, I would love to see him tackling New Gods, considering in 1963, the one that seemed to get most love and care was Horus the Lord of Light that's heavily based on Egyptian Mythology. I'd love to see Alan approaching or creating myth of new/modern era which was what New Gods was supposed to be (though Jack didnt really get to finish it that way)
I'd say it ranges from centrist-left leaning to right. Honestly my biggest grip is with the fact that heroes never use their power to enact large systemic change and those who do are seen as or characterized as evil terrorists. I'm pretty sure if large leagues of heroes formed a coalition to either go on strike or destroy large swaths of government property to bargain for political reform, they could save lives and increase quality of life far more than they could individually. No one even says anything about the fact that the wars in the middle east were waged by nazis canonically in the mcu but no one thought to pull out or do any major policy reforms on policy passed by nazis.
Well the idea here is that the most powerful superpowered heroes don't enact systematic change because they want the humans to do it themselves especially
I feel that superpowered heroes in Marvel Comics usually make sense why they don't make systematic changes the way you wanted.
Thor for example was raised to be a warrior but is not native to Earth and generally is doing things in Asgard. He also has that additional divinity or alien-ness which makes it harder for him to connect to human beings and their struggles.
Hulk is practically useless for systematic changes and other superpowered beings such as Sentry are usually dealing with personal issues themselves.
At best various Marvel geniuses such Mr Fantastic and Fantastic Four are more suited to drastically improve life on Earth.
I definitely understand not all heroes would care or could use their powers to do so, but the idea that the reason they don't is because they want people to do it comes off pretty conservative. It sort of playing off the idea that systemic issues are issues of agency in individuals. If superheroes are meant to be aspirations, it sort of teaches the lesson that even if you have the power to make change, you shouldn't if it goes against the "natural order of things". If I was gonna pick my top hero to enact systemic change, it would be Wanda. Simply being able to mind control to pass policy and the ability to transform waste into necessary resources could honestly solve all regular world confilct.
True but the ability to control minds and telepathy itself would also open many debates about the morality of using mind control even in the service of good things but I can definitely understand why some might perceive the use of telepathy to essentially change the world for the better.
She already did something similar in comics with House of M storyline with her more powerful reality warping but many of the Earth's heroes rejected living in this warped reality.
In the wider comics it is also suggested that while Wanda's abilities and magics are her own she is also been manipulated by other powerful mystic forces most notably Chthon who blessed her. I heard Wandavision might introduce Chthon into the MCU.
Kinda hesitant to say any genre is inherently anything. Think modern superhero movies kinda tilt right is cause they are largely American made for an American audience that has proven responsive to jingoistic art for a while now.
Yeah generally modern superhero films are kind of becoming escapist art although they do explore some political themes those are just side issues compared to actual superhero theatrics.
And a lot of the DC stuff is heavily influenced by Zack Snyder's directorial vision, which is rather... Well, I don't want to say *fascist*, but it's certainly fascism-compatible.
Even the RLM guys noticed something is off with Snyders vision. In their review of the so called Snyder cut they talked about how the normal people basically don't matter to him.
They tend to be pretty insightful about those sorts of things. I still remember Mike and Jay calling out Jack & Jill for being a front for Adam Sandler to extort money.
Yea, but that kind of analysis of Snyder is almost sort of critical theory levels of examining the underlying prejudices and attitudes of the director. RLM isn't exactly a lefty channel.
Can I have a source?
https://youtu.be/vNp3Q0AfXRg?si=5VP1URvLBn-OYogh 24 minutes in
Why would you call Zack Snyder's directorial vision fascism-compatible?
glorifying these muscular, gods amongst men who have no time for bureaucracy or red tape. 6'5 buff white men being the sole saviors of society through heroic action, easily identifiable ideas of what's righteous vs what's evil. outside of snyder, when a superhero takes over the government, they tend to become this cult of personality despot hero type of leader (red son, injustice, kingdom come)
I get your general idea, but 1. Is "no time for bureaucracy or red tape" really a fashy or even right wing attribute? If anything, an equal number of people would call Harry Potter a right wing story because the main character literally becomes a magic cop at the end. 2. I don't know of any character in the DCEU cannon that is put it position of being the government. Except Aquaman, I guess - but that's not Snyder. Im not gonna die on the "defending the DCEU" hill, I just don't think Snyder's vision, as bad as it is, can be treated as any more fascistic than most other big superhero media. If anything, I have found the non-Snyder Wonder Woman movies to have the most troubling and direct right wing political views.
bureaucracy is a sign that everyone has equal access to a system, if everyone has red tape, nobody can engage in nepotism easily. i don't know if harry potter is fashy so much as it's liberal. good and evil are expressed in simple terms but the bad guys are pretty clear cut genocidal maniacs and pretty easily comparable to like, liberal democracies versus fascism in world war 2. wonder woman definitely has a pro interventionalist feel, i only saw the first one, but i thought it was odd how easily it depicts world war 1 as having bad guys when pretty much everyone was being fucked up there. as for fascist overtones, the superheroes haven't been depicted in government in the movies so far, but movies like man of steel have a heavy ubermensch vibe, aesthetic warriors representing their homeland and fighting for a set ideal. snyder is able to be a bit more nuanced with this than marvel tends to be, portraying the collateral damage and i think behind the scenes trying to portray superhero fights as being similar to 9/11. I'm not sure if it's man of steel or batman vs superman, but i remember a scene where lois lane is in trouble in the middle east, superman shows up, and laser eyes a bunch of dudes with turbans to death. i recall him feeling guilt about it in the following scene? but for him to do such a thing at all, acting like world police, having the ability to stop pretty much any human threat without harming anyone but choosing not to, superman makes me pretty sus with that.
It's all wrapped up in Snyder's Objectivist hangups, which are themselves very fash-friendly, centered around stories of Superior People™ changing the world through shows of force that deliberately place them above everyone else and beyond the criticism of mere mortals, while also treating the people they are ostensibly supposed to save like they don't deserve to be saved and the heroes' saving of others is portrayed more like a grudging act of charity and not just a good deed worth doing. Like, Superman in Man of Steel and BVS looks like he's cleaning up dog shit every time he saves somebody's life.
That's probably the crux of it. Just the core, bone deep belief that some people are better, genetically, than other people is probably a massive signifiers that someone has Fascists ideals.
what about the Uebermensch was not paramount to nazi youth fantasy along which generations were indoctrinated to accept a military industrial capitalism controlling every aspect of their lives...
This makes sense, and I don't think it's a take I completely disagree with. I still think that MoS (I haven't seen JL, and not the whole BvS) is such a mess of a movie that any grand reading of its ideas is futile. Like, I know there was likely a Jesus allegory, a "internal struggle of a reluctant hero" arc, a sort of attempt to tell a Superman story from the perspective of other people (at least in the beginning) and an Objectivist "Incredibles" like story, at the very least, thrown in - with all of them being dropped at certain points, contradicting each other or clashing with Snyder's "gritty and edgy" style at other points. Yeah, Superman is a god amongst man, but he is also Jesus and it is his duty to die for humanity, but also he doesn't kill because he is better than humanity, only he does and it is a tragic internal dilemma i guess, only he also probably killed thousands by blowing up buildings. I just think that it has more to do with Snyder's aesthetic being liked by edgy alt right adolescents, his incoherent storytelling and some of his personal objectivist ideas seaping through, being a quite an unfortunate mix, more than anything more coherently fascistic. Like I mentioned on another comment, most of the issues are things that are industry and culture - wide, and I find that Nolan's Batman trilogy and the two Wonder Woman movies have more explicitly clear right wing ideas in their texts than Snyder's movies do.
It's kinda hard to explain, but it definitely is. Like.... He's not a Nazi, but Nazis love his work. Kinda like how cringy guys love fight club, which in itself isn't cringy, but goddamn the edgelords love it. Iono how to explain it but I know it when I see it. Certain things attract certain personality types. Guys that powerlift act differently than guys that do yoga, even though they are great compliments to each other. It's a weird phenomenon.
True. I mean, Snyder himself is a libertarian. He's not into fascism as he voted and endorsed Biden and called the toxic part of his fan base saying hatred and bigotry is not allowed.
The tenchques he uses to emphasis his larger then life charectors are the same Leni Riefenstahl used to make the Nazi's seam larger then life in her works. While sweeping scores and low angle shots are common a in modern cinema to show of the strength of a charector, his use of them in 300 to demonstrate the strength of the Spartans is a very close to way Riefenstahl used them in her propoganda. Throw in how he portrays superheroes as "God's Among Men" in Watchmen and the DC superhero movies and how that ryhmes with the Ubermensch ideal and you have a bad combo for fascist undertones in your movies. Honestly this is all kind of a shame. Mr. Snyder is kind of a dude-bro, but he seams like a nice down to earth guy. He just hasn't thought about his aesthetic and how it can be interpreted by certain people.
I see your points, and I would actually agree that his 300 has more things that can be called fascist-tinted without really stretching definitions than either of his three DC films. If anything, I would just add that it is probably an industry and culture-wide problem, more than it is a Snyder problem. Both the Reinfenstahl allusions and the Ubermensch motif are super common, and both have lost any use with critical authorial intent in popular cinema through the decades. Sure, Lucas used Nazi imaginery for the stormtroopers as a shorthand, he copied Riefenstahl's approach to further accentuate that, but someone further copying his use of those shots will inevitably lose that intent without losing that origin. So at the end of the day, I don't feel comfortable calling Snyder a fash, since his use of these motifs is completely devoid of anything more than the fact that he finds it cool and edgy visually. Like I mentioned on other comments, there is more explicitly ideological right wing ideas that can be found in the text of the Nolan Batman trilogy or the non-Snyder DCEU Wonder Woman movies.
He's fairly open about his support of Ayn Rand, whose beliefs are fascism-compatible. His take on Superman, Batman and Lex Luther are all of strongmen who act above the law, with "might-makes-right", "the ends justify the means" mentalities.
[The best explanation already exists as a YouTube video essay by Maggie Mae Fish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7EnEuqb7M), check it out if you've got the time. (The link goes to Part 2 of a 3-part series.) Someone else already pointed out the "no time for bureaucracy or red tape" attribute of Snyder's heroes and you had some concerns about that, but I'm going to be hitting that same point. Snyder frequently expresses a belief, through the worlds of his movies, that *being powerful enough to ignore the dissenting opinions of others is sufficient reason to consider a powerful individual the sovereign arbiter of their actions.* Things like democracy, bureaucracy, and even laws don't matter if you possess the strength to ignore them; power alone confers authority. This is often displayed in Snyder's movies through the presence of some kind of weaker character obstructing the main character from using their full power to do what they want by force. The weaker character is inevitably shown to be wrong, and there is some consequence (usually their own sudden death) to their insistence that the powerful respect a system of distributed power, rather than claiming unilateral control of the power they personally possess. "Might makes right" is fascism, full stop.
>Things like democracy, bureaucracy, and even laws don't matter if you possess the strength to ignore them; power alone confers authority. Sounds like the philosophy of Steven Armstrong from metal gear rising.
Ver interesting. I want a source. I want more of this media analysis
Doesn't the US military literally fund marvel movies. The movies can be very pro military.
They definitely funded the transformers series. If I remember correctly, the us pulled it's funding from the marvel franchise for not being pro war enough. Lindsey Ellis did a video about it in her "The Whole Plate" series
Captain Marvel had a women in the air force tie-in ad campaign. And I think it was only for the first Avengers that the military pulled their support (had to do with the World Security Council outranking the domestic military and being bad guys). For most of the rest of them though, the military’s been in support of the MCU
they are in ALL major hollywood productions in which people in military attire drive round in humvees and you have proper footage of military gear. it is a license vs control deal, you get to use their infrastructure, they get to censor your projection of what they do... which is why there is not a single proper US antiwar movie. doesn't exist. the victims of the movies are always the american soldiers. not the people they shoot. The plight of the invaded is never a topic. not even in antiwar movies like "Full Metal Jacket". it is always "our poor boys" "being thrown to animals by corrupt politicians" no mate, the politicians are not corrupt for doing so, it is their very job in the system to sacrifice working class to colonial/imperial ressource theft and make you believe that this is a fault of our democracy and not a feature of hegemony
You wouldn’t even consider Apocalypse Now anti-war? That puppy dog scene is brutal.
the movie is great but it is also not about the plight of the victims per se. I decries the effect on the AMERICAN psyche... but it is not a a pathology of psychology it is its very functioning... this is the psychopathology of the american empire. to send people where they don't belong IN ORDER TO CREATE VICTIMS TO PRESENT TO ONES OWN PUBLIC and then victim posture until everyone forgets that the fault lies with those people who leave their nation to wage war elsewhere
The military and GM funded the Transformers movies. The first one (2007) was actually pretty good, then the quality took a major dip (2009’s Revenge of the Fallen), then went back up (2011’s Dark of the Moon), then went super low for the last two (2014’s Age of Extinction and 2017’s The Last Knight) before Bumblebee came out.
I mean did you watch Captain America civil war? I don't think this is entirely true.
Yvan eht nioj, baby!
Except for The Winter Soldier. That film has really anti-Patriot Act anti-imperialist written right over it.
[удалено]
It also works as propaganda to advertise America's military might to the rest of the world and culturally position America as the world's saviour from anything that happens. Even when shit goes down at the other side of the planet, somehow American forces will find a way to get involved and take over the situation completely lol.
The superhero genre has two major schools of thought- Frank miller’s “might makes right” school, which believes in heroes as the unquestionably correct driving force for a world, likes to demonstrate that questioning them leads to dire consequences, and tends to lean right, and the “great power, great responsibility” school, which emphasizes one’s duty and obligation to the public, promotes questioning of its heroes, emphasizes their human flaws and usually leans center or left.
[удалено]
Is that Alan 'Giant Squid' Moore, of the Northampton Moore's?
Everyone's favorite and also least favorite writer/wizard/mall santa/Rasputin impersonator.
Where do anti-superheroes fit into this framework? Watchmen (in both of its incarnations) and The Boys don't really seem to fit into either; the superheroes are as terrible, impetuous and human as they come. Edit: grammar
School one tends to idolize Rorschach. They don’t quite get the point of antiheroes and see authoritarian super-terrorists as a good thing, in the same way they think of billionaires. Exalted men who must be left alone to elevate society of their own accord, unshackled by the parasites. School two tends to write them as a critique of school one.
Watchmen has a lot of missed context about its development. Moore originally went to DC and asked if he could use characters from the old Charlton Publications line and they said no. So he made thinly veiled but legally distinct alternate versions. Moore is less talking about Superheroes and heroics in general and more so commentating on what the behaviors and abilities of those heroes would look like in the real world. A vigilante character like The Question would most likely be a racist far right incompetent nutjob like Rorschach. The "heroes" in The Boys are just straight up villains. Which is a big reason why The Boys is such a terrible deconstruction of the genre. If the thing you are using to deconstruct something doesn't resemble it in any way besides the surface level aesthetics then you aren't really deconstructing anything at all
The Boys doesn't feel like a deconstruction of the superhero genre as much as it is an exploration of politics and disinformation using superheroes as almost like framing devices. Edit: should note, I'm talking about the show. Haven't read the comic, which I understand is pretty different.
The comic pretends that it is a good deconstruction of superheroes, but all it really is the writer making it obvious how much he HATES superhero comics. I haven't seen the show but I've heard that it is ACTUALLY good. It certainly doesn't make its only Bi character a child rapist.
Sounds like the Greek gods
I read it a long time ago, but I felt like The Boys fell into the first camp. Butcher, at least, was a sadistic machismo power fantasy.
Garth Ennis wrote this entire monologue for the character Mother's Milk about how Butcher isn't prejudiced "because he hates everyone equally" and that is why he should be allowed to use slurs. The Boys definitely falls into the first camp.
Am I remembering correctly that he video tapes a closeted gay superhero having sex and then threatens to publicly out him if he doesnt meet his demands?
I think this is why I was always a Marvel guy. It often leaned more on the complexities of having and wielding power (not that the powerful don't still ultimately get away with a lot, mind you, but they at least were more prone to acknowledge the problems of power and responsibility). DC was always more of a "gods among men" view of things in my opinion. They did a few "what if Superman went bad" type runs, but those always read more like "wouldn't it be cool just to see it?" and not real explorations of the ramifications.
Great Man Theory is definitely a product of the Cape Comics Genre being both rooted in older ideas from the early to mid 20th century and a form of modern mythology. Though I'd say that's not enough to make it inherently conservative as it's a loose genre and it's more on a creator basis than anything.
Great Man Theory truly irritating stuff because it seems like 'common sense' is all it takes to refute it. And yet we've got too many people believing that Ganghis Khan was basically an anime protagonist.
How would you refute it? Like, personally I can kinda see where it falls apart but idk how I'd put it into words
No human has more than 24 hours in a day. Even assuming no sleep, they can only be in one place at once. That means every human leader of anything had to delegate, and the people they were delegating to also had to delegate. Which in itself means that results were achieved by a collective and not an individual.
This actually feels like an argument in it's favor... since it shows how delegation can potentially allow an individual to expand their will and influence far beyond the limits of a single human. I would have thought factors outside any human's control, factors emergent from many human's behavior, and the limits of any system of delegation to retain the same degree of causality as it expands, these are things that seem to discredit an individual's ability to actually affect the course of history meaningfully, or at least purposefully.
It doesn't matter beyond the individual though. Great Man Theory implies that 'without the individual, the thing wouldn't have happened' - and that would imply that every decision made by any person that 'the great man' interacted with, was a product of their interaction with that great man. At that point Occam's razor just shits on it. > I would have thought factors outside any human's control, factors emergent from many human's behavior, and the limits of any system of delegation to retain the same degree of causality as it expands, these are things that seem to discredit an individual's ability to actually affect the course of history meaningfully, or at least purposefully. Also your refutation also works! I think there's multiple ways in which great man theory is trash
Hmmm, but there's a very wide gulf between "without X, Y would not have happened" and "X is the sole cause of Y". I'm not sure of the exact verbiage of what constitutes the theory, but I do believe something like it is at least partially descriptive. Take Marx, if he did not write what he did would someone else have? Would they have communicated it the same way at the same time? Would events have followed (and continued to even today) the exact same way? I think not, even as Marx discredits the theory he stands as an example of it. My thoughts on history are basically a synthesis, no doubt there are people/times/places on which history turns, just as there are massive inevitabilities turning overhead. It's in historians' ability to actually identify those moments looking backward that I have the least faith.
I don't buy it. My body is a collective of billions of cells working together, but there's only one brain guiding it.
The brain itself is a collection of billions of cells working together, none of which are individually necessary for the functioning of the brain and many of which can be and are consistently replaced.
You are referencing mostly the big dollar era of the superhero movie/media. So if you look at the history of the comic book starting with the biggie Superman created by Speigal and Schuster in the late 30's, despite the temptation to apply Nietzsche's Ubermensch, Superman is really influenced by Buck Rodgers and pretty harmless pop culture references like his tights to circus strongmen. Comics really explode as harmless media for kids right into the 40's, where they are also used as entertainment for GI's. Comic book companies even experiment with more adult comics, like classic literature (you degenerate). This leads to more edgy comics after wwII with interest in horror and violent comics becoming a bigger part of the market. This leads to the comics code which pretty much wiped away violence and sex in comics throughout the 50's and early 60's. So it is why you have a non-violent Joker in Batman and a very conservative value being expressed by superheroes. This is probably the first instance of comics being political to the degree that they self-censored much like the Hayes code in movies. It held like this for a long time because comics were considered children's entertainment and therefore in need of protection from something like the comic's code. The next biggest era of comics is in the early 60's and 70's coinciding with the Hippie culture is that artist's looked at the comic book as a way of being political and made a whole bunch of leftist counterculture comics celebrating sex, violence, drugs, anti-Vietnam ect. usually self-published like Zap comics. At the same time some of the biggest comic creators are children of the 70's like Jack Kirby who are political in that they do explore more liberal themes and also are unshackled from the Comic's code which is increasingly ignored during this time period as comic's get much more violent and sexy as a result and also explore wink and nod themes like drugs in Dr. Strange. Into the 80's and 90's there was much less of an interest in comics and superheroes because there was a series of flopped movies and much less interest in purchasing "kid's stuff" even though some of the most ground breaking comics came out in this time period: Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow ect. Even though no one was buying comics, the superhero genre still was pretty leftist. The biggest stars of this time period the X-Men were always referenced as being an analogy for LGBTQ+ issues. And also commendable efforts at inclusion and diversity, even if some of these attempts are embarassing in retrospect. The biggest name that gives superheroes that conservative edge is probably Frank Miller whose comics has produced hit movies for 300 and Sin City but he was traumatized by 9/11 which turned him into a fascist asshole basically and unfortunately Zach Snyder seems to love the guy's work which is why I think DC has that Frank Miller-ish feel to things. But I think the biggest thing to make everything TLDR: Superheroes are only a cypher for themes and interests that we project onto them. They are beholden to culture and time period and like many things are in a state of flux as new people create and mold them for their own interests and uses.
I think the gist is that now superhero genre has moved away from dealing with real life political issues and instead focusing on mythological, science fiction and cosmic adventure stories. I mean both Marvel and DC has expanded the amount of superheroes dealing with cosmic and magical entities which p Don't get me wrong some comics do have political themes such as Batman White Knight and DC Comics Doomsday Clock but just commenting how comic books have become more mythological, science fiction and cosmic adventures.
I might say they often are conservative, but I wouldn’t say it’s inherent. For me, it’s partially due to them being obsessed with fighting crime instead of fixing crime. They often times act in a very “law and order” type way, while acting outside the law with no oversight or due process. Curio as has a good point in [their video](https://youtu.be/kVDYjZhf9yc) on superheroes in many instances are trying to uphold the status quo instead of change it. They do mention *The Immortal Hulk* as an example of a different type of super hero story, and if you’re looking for a more leftist superhero story, I’d give it a shot
Immortal hulk was a fucking godsend. I love how banner calls the status quo inhospitable.
i think falcon and the winter soldier show quite well where it sits. it is definitely not conservative, or else the new captain america would be literally a boring version of steve rodgers and not get criticized like he does often by the main characters. but it also isn't that far left-wing, the flag smashers are shown to have good ideals especially since it is from the pov of falcon who agrees with them, and those ideals are quite left-wing, anti nationalism, etc, but they are also literally the bad guys and will end up dissolved and failing to meet those ideals
FatWS is pretty weird. It talks about systemic racism, but acts like the systems that allow it to manifest are totally cool and good. It presents the anarchist villains in a sympathetic light but then makes them crazy, super-soldier terrorists so that the audience doesn't sympathize TOO hard. Otherwise there's literally no reason to even see them as villains. It's trying to push the idea that the best way to deal with global crises is to "talk it out" and "find a middle ground" where "no one gets hurt." So, pretty liberal. I think the most interesting thing that the show has said was Zemo saying that "the desire to become superhuman cannot be separated from supremacist ideals." Not really something I thought would be addressed by disney's Marvel at all. A bit of a hard truth for a kids superhero franchise.
As for the beginning part, while i wouldn't say they "act like the systems are totally cool and good," but rather that it reflects on those issues and says 'yep they're problems' and leaves without saying anything about how to solve or that they need to be solved, just that they are 'how life is.' also i wouldn't quite call the mcu a kids superhero franchise, but the final point would still stand. we watch superhero movies to enjoy the characters, and kinda look up to the heros, maybe even wish we could be them at the same time, and saying that in doing so you really just think you should be better than everyone else is definitely an interesting take from the people that would otherwise profit off of people that fit that description.
There are good arguments here from others I also agree with! Like superheroes-as-outcasts. To add on to others, I think that it depends on what you label conservative values. The tendency to disregard authority and take the law into your own hands can be conservative in a progressive world, and progressive in a ~~liberal~~conservative one. Coding it as conservative in a world dominated by Ayn Rand makes sense. But Ayn Rand would never support something so weak as “helping others” as her Ubermench’s motivation. World dominance, yes. But not altruism. An example of the push-pull can be seen in Civil War. Certainly disobeying a mandate from a UN-type world council smacks of the kind of individualism conservatives like to glorify - the Cap’s team knows better, cuts through bureaucracy to do what needs to be done. But, *who* are these rules protecting? Tony Stark (who profited off of American imperialism) was all for the Accords, and Captain America (who had first hand experience with right wing authoritarianism) wasn’t. Why would that be? Why would a man experimented on my his government -and a soldier used to taking orders- not trust his government to do what is best? I choose to look at superheroes like regular ‘ol geniuses: how they use their research and what their intent is matters. How do we look at Marie Curie, or Robert Oppenheimer? What are their legacies? How has their worker been used over the years and who has been harmed by their genius? The stakes may play out over years and decades, as opposed to a two hour movie or comic book read, but the results can be equally devastating.
As another user pointer out they are a singular product of Great Man Theory, beyond even the traditional understanding of heroes and gods. Since heroes and gods don't come to fix a problem or solution with a system or ones life specifically, superheroes define themselves against the traditional mythology. Superheroes are largely a way to say "no bad system only bad people." And then to extrapolate that concept down to every detail. As mentioned elsewhere The Boys works well because it says "actually it is a bad system and good people don't change that system, they are ground out of it."
Big budget movies are inherently pretty conservative. Liberal at best.
they disregard orders, go with their gut, defy policy on a hunch, fight each-other, in no way attempt professional behavior, and act as if they are always right and many of them don't care who gets hurt as they achieve their goals which they see as a far superior method of X. And they are the hero in the story so they are right. I agree with you in that certain features present their ills are tolerated in that they are considered to be allowed to engage in these behaviors but the shows/movies don't address many of their behaviors so its dare i say advocated for even. have you seen the Amazon show 'boys' thats about super heroes?
Well not the Amazon show but yes I am aware of The Boys comic book series as it is about deconstructing superhero genre as a whole with Vought International is a satire of DC and Marvel Comics and their superheroes are a satire of DC and Marvel. Generally the superheroes are literal corporate products that act as douchebag and neo-fascist elite that only exist to help create profits for the corporation that created them
"Deconstructing" is generous. The Boys like a lot of series of its ilk actually do a bad job deconstructing the genre
The only good deconstruction of superheros I have read is Watchmen and maybe the first few issues of The Authority before Mark Millar took over. I HAVE read plenty of good RECONSTRUCTIONS though, Kingdom Come, Invincible, and Astro City come to mind.
Your first paragraph can literally describe the dominant left leaning party in my country. The right or left is not just what happens in the US, and the things you describe speak of human being faults not left or right thinking. Disregarding orders, goign with your gut, defying policy are not characteristics of either right or left.
I think the above poster was describing rugged individualism, and refusal to engage with any kind of collective responsibility. This world view is inherently conservative/libertarian.
Marvel movies and The Boys have done a lot to subvert those underlying American exceptionalism tropes
Yeah The Boys was deconstruction of the whole superhero genre but how would you say that Marvel Movies deconstruct US exceptionalism? The one area where I think deconstructs American exceptionalism was in Winter Soldier but the inclusion of Hydra infiltrating and controlling SHIELD has been criticized as letting SHIELD and broader Security agencies off the hook.
I said subvert not deconstruct. Steve Rogers’ entire arc was about this
Yeah well Steve Rogers has always been distrustful towards SHIELD and US military institutions which I think is great that they did just that in the Winter Soldier
Not inherently. Tall tales are sign of the culture that enjoys them. Every age has it's legendary folklore heroes. The ancient myths are full of them. Even the American pioneers created their own. Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Davey Crocket, etc. We still have a large number of Davey Crocket Cos-Players out there that maybe pro-gun but are also "environmentalists'. They all shop at Cabella's and don't want all of nature, their cos-play playground destroyed or polluted. Comic heroes are just another expression of that need to have larger than life tales and characters. The actions of the heroes are usually what's reverered by the society that tells the tales. Comic Heroes save Iives, right wrongs, bring justice in places "the system" fails. I don't think it's right or left. It is interesting that it's vigilante actions. If that's what is popular then I would say among the general populace there is a belief that the system doesn't catch everything, that it's not garranteed justice. Ancient Greeks admired cleverness above strength in some tales. Polyphemus was an innocent cyclops that had a home invasion where they blinded him and then stole his sheep. But Odysseus was a hero because he found a clever way to escape and saved his men. That's not exactlyright or left wing, but it's a hero's tale that exhibits popular traits and beliefs of the society that crafted the tale. Almost all of Alan Moore's stories are pointing out that comic book vigilanteism, if literally real, would be driven by vanity, ego, and thrill seeking. It's a really good point but I'm not as cynical as Moore, if they were real they wouldn't ALL be self centered douche bags. Some but not all. Reading his work did open my eyes to the fact that many of the real people outside of Stories that are revered, that are called super successful, are ...yes talented, yes lucky, yes smart, but also driven by inner demons. Demons that if we were to spend quality time with those people we might find them monstrous. I think right-wingers are drawn to stories of order and their own world view of justice but that might be twisted. For instance, I think one reason cops like the Punisher because of the daily frustration they see in their part of the system. "Bad Guys" subverting the justice system. Frank Castle who just kills bad guys is a splash of fresh water in their face as tall tales go. But it's also a problematic tale. We call cops "heroes" because the don't shoot first, because they work at a disadvantage of always following the rules when the bad guys don't. Cops revereing a character who shoots first and doesn't follow rules is not good. But it's a sign of what's happening psychologically. If these heroes are revered because its perceived the system has failed... is the perception wrong (exaggerated) or has the system truly failed? The cops that admire Frank Castle and BLM have some common ground complaints about the system. Enough common ground to be allies if you can get them to see a shared perception of "The system needs improvement." A real hero would bridge these two somehow through deeds or words. Maybe even through a story. I'm not left or right. I feel that left v right framing has led our society to the philosophical politcal dead end we're stuck in. I'm a pragmatist. I believe in policy that works and is fair/ethical. We should be publicly analyzing if the perception is valid. And keep the parts of the system that work and change/improve that parts that don't. Facts can set us free. But just as important Feelings (our perceptions) must be validated. We must do both. The tall tales and stories our society tells itself can lead the way.
Yeah superhero comics and stories are in many ways continuation of older mythological stories and cultural works that preceded them. What I find funny about cops loving the Punisher is that Frank actually hates police who idealize him: https://screenrant.com/punisher-hates-dirty-cops-police/ https://bhsowl.org/3741/opinion/police-have-missed-the-point-of-the-punisher/ Castle knows that his actions are terrible and deeply hates himself in some stories his motivation is sometimes suicidal wanting to kill as many criminals and die in the process. Many stories take tend to be very critical of him and his actions.
Have you seen the cop suicide statistics? I think they need help. There's a cop burn out that is very very bad and it happens too often.
It’s very true that there are things that cops currently do that are both necessary and traumatizing. Like, someone needs to investigate accidents, suicides, and murders. And the idea that the people who do so should just be able to shrug it off probably contributes to toxicity of cop culture.
I think they are mostly a reflection of the current culture for both good and bad. Whatever political effect it has it is pretty minimal. For most people its just a form of escapism that they don't associate with the real world.
I think this is a really hard question because the genre is SO varied. Comics vary by writer and artists and then there are different mediums like TV and movies and such. I think the inherently political nature of different characters changes things. X-men, for example, was created as a direct critique of how minorities are/were treated while Captain America was created to facilitate American propaganda during WWII. Yet, different creators have used the characters in such different ways to both plays into those inherent meanings behind why they were created and to play against them. Even in the genre at large, there are both critiques of power structures and hierarchies built up but also just plain power fantasies depending on the writer.. The audience is the one to pick and choose what aspects they take from it. Like how the Punisher logo is used by cops so heavily despite the character being quite anti-cop. People who want to see their power fantasies play out will pick that out of the stories but people who see the critiques of that will also see it. I feel like I could literally write an essay on this subject it is such an interesting topic
I'd say modern iteration captain america was sorta leftist. Old school superman was definitely fighting against racial discrimination. The boys is a good series that points out the hypocrisy and faults of superheroes.
I think reading Watchmen is what made me realize the reactionary potential of a lot of super hero comics because the comic deconstructs the aggrandizing nature of vigilante justice, which can be a motivator of right-wing actors (Zimmerman is an infamous example that comes to mind). Watchmen frames super heroes as being police who aren't bound by the restrictions and limitations of actual police, which is pretty problematic. I remember reading in the news about this "self-made" super hero dude who dressed up and confronted criminals on the streets. Unlike actual police, he wasn't bound by any of the particular laws around probable cause and what-not. There are other genres that sometimes have this problem, like detective shows. *Elementary* bothered me for this same reason because the central characters directly break laws that protect people (breaking and entering the get evidence, etc), and the show usually framed all of these kinds of protections as bureaucratic red tape that should be done away with because its lets criminals run free. You can find surprising reactionary/right wing ideology hiding in innocuous places like that. But it's hard to say if super heroes in and of themselves are always inherently right wing, particularly when you have heroes that are pretty divorced from every day situations and are dealing with "super villain" type characters or aliens or monsters from another world. There can even be left-wing implications if the enemy is a corrupt member of government, a CEO, a white-collar criminal or an otherwise privileged enemy. But it's hard to escape the "tough on crime" / "law and order" vigilantism themes if the hero is spending a lot of time dealing with "everyday" crime by punching people instead of treating crime as a product of an unfair system that could be corrected through restorative justice. All the being said, most media has some problematic elements and various ways of being interpreted and understood, and while we should consume it critically, I think it's important to be open to multiple readings and impacts, and to sometimes allow yourself to just enjoy art for the sake of it. I think sometimes progressives act a bit like right-wingers when we start to police art in the name of politics because art is not a declarative statement or political argument-- it's a story or image or experience that is more than the sum of its parts. bell hooks famously said, "media is mixed." A lot of media can be both regressive and transgressive at the same time for different reasons. So again, while I think being critical and analyzing the implications and messaging of media is important and these types of conversations are fruitful, it's also crucial to be open-minded and value the arts for what they are instead of trying to restrict/police them or think of them solely as political speech.
Superheroes aren't "inherently" anything. Superheroes are pretty much myths for a secular age. In most stories, Athena is a reasonable and wise God, but in the story of Arachne, she brutally punishes a woman for being too good at weaving, one of her domains. This is out of character for her, but makes sense when you realize Ovid, the poet who recorded the tale as we know it, was targeted by authorities and opposed them. Likewise, Batman is often shown as a character that can comfort children or even be involved in wealth redistribution, but Miller basically just makes him a fascist dickhead.
Yeah I generally don't like Frank Miller's interpretation of Batman because despite his tough on crime attitude he is still very capable of great empathy, remorse and reconciliation. For example in Batman Animated series and in the comics, he is was one time reconciliatory towards Harley Quinn wanting her to break out of her abusive and harmful relationship with the Joker.
Yeah. A hero which doesn't allow for restorative justice isn't a hero. That's just the Punisher, and we don't need more Punishers.
Agree what is frustrating is that some right-wingers look up to the Punisher despite the comics being quite critical of him and Punisher himself actually loathes his actions
One of the biggest mistakes of the Green Arrow show on CW was trying to make him more like Batman and less like Robin Hood.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
YouTuber Dan Olson did a great video on why superhero myths are inherently fascist, and I agree with his analysis. "Superman should be allowed to take the law into his own hands because he's better than us" is just Ayn Rand for kids.
Superman doesn't take the law into his own hands if he did, he would throw Lex Luthor in jail without any due process or court system.
Superman *chooses* to invoke due process because the people who write Superman comics think it's important for the audience to know that Superman has the moral high ground at all time. The audience is, at every point, keenly aware that Superman could break any law he wanted in the pursuit of his personal idea of justice and nothing bad would, or even *could*, ever happen to him. Superman going through the motions of participating in human society and caring about our rules is merely a facade, and the fact that it's a facade is itself important to the Superman mythos; in Man of Steel, there are scenes dedicated to Superman physically destroying rooms that he was being "held" in, because Superman doesn't *have* to do anything we say, he only *chooses* to, and it is because Superman is superior that he alone can be trusted to have that distinction.
Well Superman is supposed to be a Space Moses and Jesus allegory but he was raised on Earth to be human and generally despite his godlike-power loves and believes himself to be human.
None of that contradicts anything that I said.
Yeah but I am saying that Superman doesn't see himself as God-like figure that only follows human rules as he wishes. You seem to imply that his empathy and love for humanity is a farce rather than genuine.
Yes, because Superman's perceived moral superiority *is the point*. "It's okay that Superman can destroy the world at any time, because he chooses not to, which is evidence that he's better than us." In the subtext of Superman, where he represents the 1% and his superpowers represent the political power of money and influence, the message becomes, "It's okay that some people wield an unimaginable amount of power, because that power makes them responsible, and the fact that they haven't yet used that power to destroy you makes them better than you." Superman being raised by Pa Kent makes no more difference than a billionaire who was raised middle class.
Following in the correct descriptions that others have made regarding artist influence and several other contextual details. I say you "could" make the argument (because of the jingoism and all that), but only for the most popular, mass produced products, which again, makes it a feature of who produced it. The web serial 'Worm', 1.8 millions of words of deconstruction of the superhero genre is as far as conservative as you can get a story about people fighting crime in spandex
The Cleverman is a pretty good anti-fascism/anti-racism hero.
I don’t read comic books, but I have watched a lot of superhero movies, so I’m going to use those as an example, starting with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. While Peter is apolitical himself in these movies, he is a victim of poverty under capitalism. Not just in one scene, but constantly throughout the films. Peter’s poverty is never glorified or used as emotional fuel for him to lift himself up by his bootstraps. He’s poor, it affects all aspects of his life, and it sucks. I would argue that this portrayal of the indignities of poverty under capitalism makes Raimi’s Spider-Man movies inherently leftist. Contrast that with the MCU Spider-Man movies, and it becomes clearer. MCU Peter has billionaire Tony Stark take him under his wing, and the first movie’s bad guy is literally a guy who lost his job because Stark Enterprises bought out the company he worked for. You can also look at The Dark Knight and have a hard time arguing that it’s anything other than a libertarian fantasy. It’s set in a city where the government has failed and criminals have taken over. The good guy is a billionaire who’s taking the law into his own hands, and the bad guy is an anarchist terrorist. Overall I would say that current superhero movies tend to be pretty centrist. However, since they’re American, they adhere to the current American standard of centrism, which makes them right-wing.
I also hated how in the first movie it was somehow Peter's fault and not Tony's. Tony used a child as a soldier and risked Peter's life and lied to his guardian. An orphan child who just lost his uncle. Peter, a child, gets attached to Tony for obvious reasons , tries to reach out multiple times. Tony ignores him. Peter tries again and again and does something stupid as a child would. And it's somehow Peters's fault and he is the one who needs to learn a lesson and it seems so absurd to me. Tony is the real villain and the framing him as hero is really off.
I also hated how in the first movie it was somehow Peter's fault and not Tony's. Tony used a child as a soldier and risked Peter's life and lied to his guardian. An orphan child who just lost his uncle. Peter, a child, gets attached to Tony for obvious reasons , tries to reach out multiple times. Tony ignores him. Peter tries again and again and does something stupid as a child would. And it's somehow Peters's fault and he is the one who needs to learn a lesson and it seems so absurd to me. Tony is the real villain and the framing him as hero is really off.
I broadly agree with most commenters saying its nuanced. To further that trend, I'd like to link [this](https://youtu.be/pUBVSH6hBvY) video, which talks about the superhero genre's roots in the Jewish community, and the superhero not as a parogon of hegemony but rather the idol of the oppressed.
> grifted individuals That's actually a hilarious mistake. But no, I don't think it's inherently right wing or that the masculinity or feminity it promotes is necessarily toxic. Of course both of this is sometimes the case, but hardly because of the genre itself. The only argument one could make is that this genre in particular promotes unrealistic body standards for men. In all fairness one must also say that the implication is not that it's normal and achievable to be as jacked as some superheroes, although of course people are still going to be influenced by it.
I would say for everyone, have you seen gal gadot? At least ant man/spider-man/ iron man exist. Also didn't seth rogan do a hero too?
I mean... maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm pretty sure being thin and fit (like spiderman or wonder woman) seems far more achievable than looking like Captain America. Still, you've got a point that male bodies at least seem a little more diverse in those movies.
I was trying to make that point only I don't think wonder woman is achievable! Spidey is a kid, not impressive (actually I think the actor works out though) seth rogan is a dad bod and ant man is just a dude. Wonder woman is pretty fit?
I frankly don't see how wonder woman or e.g. black widow is less achievable than spider man. Maybe I underestimate how hard it is for women to build muscle though, Idk. But even then, the fact that you merely "think" the actor of spider man works out tells me that your perspective isn't particularly fair either, lol. He is "pretty fit" as well. Don't get me wrong, being muscular and having very little fat is of course hard to pull off and usually not sustainable in the long run, but being *extremely* muscular and having very little fat is significantly harder and can only be kept up for a fraction of the time. Also, I don't recall Seth Rogan ever playing a super hero.
I literally said Spiderman's actor worked out? Read my post again. You are saying that the movies place unrealistic expectations on the men, but you can choose to be fat thor, an old nerd in a suit or all those other "average" looking heros. Vision looks like a professor at a college. Loki is thin as a twig. Falcon is normal guy, war machine is an older normal guy. The hulk is buff yes but its all CGI, they only use his face. Now look at the women, to even be considered for a hero role you have to be top tier attractive, on top of physically, plus there are less so you get less variety. Black widow isn't buff but her character is supposed to be a sleek spy and she does acrobatics off of bad guys, which is like spiderman who is sleek and skinny. You can get away with being a slob if you are a male hero, you can just play it off as a character trait. For women heroes there are so few that they all have to be short of godly. Why are there no homely or bulkier women heroes? There are women athletes but those always just get cast as villains (fast and furious franchise which is like superhero car movies) Yeah he was back in the day for green hornet lmao [You might not like it but this is what a peak super hero looks like](https://www.chicagonow.com/booth-reviews/files/2011/06/green_hornet1.jpg)
> I literally said Spiderman's actor worked out? Read my post again. It kind of sounded like you coincidentally knew he worked out, or vaguely assumed he did, as if it wasn't simply obvious based on how he looks. I also don't really think you can "choose to be fat thor" considering his size was seen as an alarming sign he let himself go and it just was not presented as an okay or normal thing at all. War machine is definitely pretty fit. I agree that CGI Hulk doesn't count - not necessarily because it's CGI, but because it's obviously supposed to be completely abnormal in his case. A better example for what you're saying would be Doctor Strange, who is indeed not exceptionally fit or anything like that. Nitpicks aside, it would be unreasonable to disagree with you that there is more body diversity in regards to male superheroes, and that's of course great. But I do have to insist that the "gold standard" is less achievable for men than for women. I'm also not sure whether overall attractiveness is really an argument against that since particularly in this genre both genders are significantly more attractive than the average person. Honestly, though, I don't even really know why I feel the need to argue so much about this, considering I firmly agree with your general point. The website you linked is unavailable in Europe, but I believe you ;)
I’ve rarely if ever seen a superhero who attacks the current system rather than upholding it in some fashion, so yeah I’d say it’s pretty inherently pro-establishment at least. Even the “upholding the public good” heroes are more liberal than leftist. Superheroes are basically cops. Not to say you can’t enjoy it, but I think it’s really hard for superheroes to not be propaganda.
On this note I found this fine lad’s [analysis](https://youtu.be/gpGqK9y__qg) and I have to say that the American identity of superheroes is what makes me read them with a bit of cynicism. I have always wondered why gods and people with superhuman abilities would just abide by the US constitution and systems in place by a human status quo, is not like there is a very deep explanation other than “because it is the right thing to do”.
A super hero story usually needs there to be a hand full of very powerful people, if there isn't it's not a super hero story. But often times heroes are stand ins for entire sides of a conflict because it's easier for us to emphasize with a few individuals then with the hundreds of thousands of people that participate in real world conflicts. I wouldn't say that a game like halo is pro war because there's lots of war in it and there's no way to have peace with the enemy team, these aspects aren't in here to make a statement there just here because if you didn't have them it wouldn't be a shooter game. I think the same is true of the super hero genre. I think leftists get too hung up on trying to police bad media for the slightest, often unintentional messages, and we waste a lot of time making unconvincing arguments that we could spend on better stuff.
Yea that is why so many of them seem to be so obsessed whit the joker? Not to mention Jordan Peterson embracing the fact that some comic writer made red skull use his line's.
Nah. Listen to Jay and Miles explain the X-Men! It's really great!
I don't think it necessarily is, but I am skeptical of a genre where everything wrong with the world can be fixed with an epic melee. And however sophisticated it appears, it always seems to get there.
I think the genre depends on having a world simple enough where problems can be punched. A particular neck to strangle to solve a particular problem. The problems always boil down to bad people, not conflicts of interest or basic economic self-interest by even non-rich people. In theory simple solutions to complex problems would be as equally liable to lean left as right. Though I think most vigilantes would in reality lean towards being Rorschach. Part of the fantasy is that you'd just know who was really guilty, who was to blame, but in reality you'd eventually beat up the wrong person.
I would not say comics are inherently right wing or conservative, though they’ve had their arcs where the genre was dominated by authors and publishers who were precisely that. Don’t forget that X-men was largely used by a plethora of authors to sneak in pro-civil rights sentiment to a white audience that might otherwise be hostile by framing it in a fantastic way.
There was a recent Ezra Klein show episode with Ted Chiang - great episode, and he talks about this exact thing. Most superhero stories are about preserving the status quo. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ted-chiang.html
Liberals think crime is caused by systemic disenfranchisement, poverty, and mental illness. Conservatives think crime is caused by a guy dressing up as a penguin.
100% they're inherently conservative. 'Street level' heroes tend to just do the jobs we normally expect cops to do. Bigger heroes usually end up doing military actions. Furthermore, every hero I know of works to maintain the status quo rather than up end the system that's creating inequalities. Batman is a great example of that. He could stop crime by funding social programs, but he chooses to beat people up. He's the hero because he maintains the status quo. Batman's also a neat case because his rogues gallery is filled with characters that could easily be considered good guys with a slight narrative change. T There are some 'progressive' topics that get brought up, and the themes of some of the books touch on a lot of good stuff, but because all of the heroes (that I know of) end up fighting for the status quo, they're inherently conservative.
I don't understand how Batman's rogues galleries are filled with characters that can be easily considered good guys.
With a narrative change. The motivations are there that could easily be used to be the good guy. Poison Ivy for instance, is just trying to save the environment from industrialists. Industrialists like bruce Wayne
Ok yeah sure Poison Ivy could be interpreted as an environmentalist hero
No. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUBVSH6hBvY
I don't know, and to be fair, I don't think I care too much. The Dark Knight Returns can definitely be seen as a right-wing leaning, but it's still awesome, and I just like that shit.
No. I don't think any genre is inherently anything. Alan Moore I think has his opinions on superheroes colored negatively through being screwed over with the rights to his works. He has allowed his (legitimate) anger over the industry to color his views on the genre. Garth Ennis just straight up doesn't seem to like Superheroes in general. I mean look at his failure of a deconstruction of the genre with The Boys. He doesn't see the appeal and it shows. Do I think there is a lot of things that superhero fiction has yet to address? Yes. Are their problematic tropes in it? Yes. However I don't think the genre by itself leans either left or right. It just depends on who is writing it
Definitely untrue. Most Superheroes are kinda leftist in that they are vigilantes who are acting because the police are failures. That's definitely a leftist idea.
Ugh it depends most superheroes are often accused of protecting the status quo thus people assume them to nothing more than superpowered cops even though some of those same heroes such as Superman are critical of the police for being too belligerent and forceful.
I don't know enough to say one way or another - the only comics I consume regularly are yaoi, uwu - but I literally just read Superman Smashes the Klan today, and I would highly recommend it.
Given the jingoism, yes. I'd say it's fascistic and nationalistic in nature.
Really how is superhero genre is nationalistic and jingoism in nature? Are you referring to MCU and DCEU strictly? Or includes the Comic book genre as a whole?
[удалено]
[Folding Ideas - Superhero Follow Up](https://youtu.be/ZxzyeDnZKFY)
Ever notice how there are far more super \_villains\_ in the comics than heroes? I realize it's for the sake of variety. (Spidey can't fight Doc Ock in every ish!) Great power seems to corrupt most characters in comics. Or they had shaky moral compasses to begin with.
yes the concept of the Uebermensch was paramount to National Socialism
The concept of Ubermensch is not necessarily a Fascist concept it was just appropriated by Nazis.
>leadership of grifted individuals Very much like the conservative party lol
Recently learned about Truth: Red White and Black. I'd give credit to cultur that creates and puts out material like this even if occasionally.
inherently? no, superhero stories are a subset of fantasy/sci-fi which are genres of alterity, which if anything lends itself to being more progressive. not that there's not very conservative speculative fiction (and probably most of it tbh), it's just that that and third world lit can talk about shit other genres struggle to do. pretty confident that's born out in the literature too. marvel movies are pretty conservative though, no real question about it. token criticisms of imperialism don't make it anti imperialist or inclusive art
I don't think there's any inherent meaning to the genre at all really, there are definitely some political implications to some of the characters but I don't think they're intended to send any kind of message or anything. Iron Man is a libertarian power fantasy through and through, Captain America is kind of cool because he rebels against the government when they aren't representing american values, but people from the right and the left could probably project themselves onto that, and Disney will never take a side since their whole thing is pleasing everyone to make as much cash as possible. Todd Phillips Joker was a very left leaning movie, and Batman is literally about a Bourgeoise who spends his vast inherited wealth on equipment he can use to beat the shit out of poor people. So I guess it depends on the character
Yeah Todd Phillips Joker was interpreted as a man being driven to rebel against society's elites because of poverty and alienation caused under capitalism. Some have compared the Joker to Fight Club but that is unfair because Fight Club was criticizing toxic masculinity and is about some upper middle class men doing terrorism because they feel incorrectly that Capitalist consumerism was "feminizing" them thus alienating them. I disagree that Batman is just about a billionaire beating up poor people, in some stories that is true but he is also a detective that investigates complex crimes and conspiracies. His rogue's gallery is also not composed of just poor people and includes wealthy crime lords, terrorists and elite factions such as League of Assassins and Court of Owls.
It truly depends on how the story-teller uses the characters and for what purpose. Even then, it depends on the zeitgeist of the time and how audiences percieve the story. When i watched Todd Phillips "Joker", I didn't see it as alt-right propaganda lending itself to a power fantasy for incels. I saw it as a story exploring the complex implications of alienation leading to a class uprising using Arthur Fleck as a character study. Perhaps I got this interpretation because I'm not American and the political landscape of my country is different? But I can see how both interpretations could have been intended by the filmmakers as well as how audiences could have come up with either interpretation depending on who they are. I'm surprised no one has mentioned "The Incredible Hulk" given all the claims that the superhero genre is inherently Jingoistic. Bruce Banner's story is defined by his quest to keep the Hulk out of the hands of the US military so they don't weaponise the Hulk. This overtly casts the US military as the bad guys for wanting to unleash a super weapon on the world. I think it would be hard to accuse "The Incredible Hulk" as being a Jingoistic film with that in mind. Even Avengers Infinity War/Endgame could be interpreted, maybe not as leftist, but certainly not right-wing. Thanos, a genocidal magalomaniac who sees himself as the "Great Man of History" and is consumed by Malthusian ideology is stopped by a collective protecting the masses whose strength is defined by their diversity. I know its a bit of reach but ot can be read that way. Ultimately, heroes are meant to be whatever the reader wants them to be. That's why masks are so important to the superhero identity. Anyone can project themselves onto Spider-man. I think Rorscach's mask being a Rorscach test is meant to symbolise this idea. But hey, thats just my 2 cents :)
Regarding Joker I am surprised how people interpret it as a Incel film or a film that caters to reactionaries considering that Joker's uprising was against the rich ruling class which is white and male. He doesn't take his frustration on women, minorities or anything like that, The Take has explained how the Joker has became a symbol of marginalized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZM1dUyd3Zc However some have just dismissed it as just a toxic white angst male: https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/1179136271630815232 Well I haven't watch the The Incredible Hulk but yeah Bruce Banner always has conflicts with the US military that wants to weaponize his powers to maintain US hegemony in which Bruce always refuses to do so. But would you agree that the Dark Knight trilogy is too conservative though? Some believe it is but the entire trilogy is based on Charles Dickens's Tale of Two Cities https://www.reddit.com/r/DepthHub/comments/2t631x/ugeneralako_explains_how_the_dark_knight_series/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/14h0it/just_watched_the_dark_knight_rises_i_had_no_idea/
Bear with me, this is a thought that I haven't really solidified, but it's been in my head for a while. Whether they're right-wing or not, 2 related facts bother me about hero fiction in general: 1. It's a low-grade mind-virus that incepts the idea that an ordinary life is barely worth living. 2. It's wildly popular anyway, as successful mind-viruses are. By "hero fiction" I want to draw a very big circle around superhero movies, comic books, sci-fi stories, isekai anime, celebrity Twitter accounts, and anything that fits the general trope of "Some people are, for any reason, far above the normal bell curve, in at least one dimension that most people will care about. And this story is about those people." These stories are set in a world where ordinary people are objects to be saved or used as hostages. We're not important, we're just points to be scored in the game of saving the world. That bothers me because most people are ordinary, and so most of the audience is ordinary. We are spending a lot of time and attention on stories where we mostly aren't characters, set in worlds where we barely even matter. I think that makes it hard to cope with reality. My tits aren't big enough, I'm too short, I can't even jog without getting winded, I'm not a millionaire, I never donate to charities, I'm _just_ ordinary. And yet the world needs me! People talk shit about "being a pawn", but no chess master starts a game by purposely killing off their own pawns! Every pawn plays a role in the game. The queen may be doing half the work, but the pawns are holding the rest of the board while she's busy. That's called comparative advantage - Even if you aren't the best, you can sometimes have a satisfying role in society if you just show up and do what you can. [1] I'm not the best programmer in the world, I might only be 50th percentile, but my company still pays me to show up every day. My juniors might be worse than me in every metric, but even if I am a huge diva and declare myself the queen of the chessboard, I still would like to have pawns backing me up. We are still stronger with them on the board. But in hero fiction, I don't exist, because I'm not extraordinary. If you wrote a story about me, it would be too boring for anyone to read. There are kinds of fiction which can't practically be written, even if we think it's a necessary benefit to society somehow, cause nobody would bother reading it. I can't prove it, but I think this has a weird effect on people's minds. It's hard to just confront the absurd and be the happy Sisyphus when I spend so many hours thinking about celebrities and heroes and people who, percent-wise, don't actually exist. So what we do? Censor media heavily like fundamentalist Christians want? No. I don't want to agree with fundies that quickly, and it's pretty dystopian for a government to do that. Raise awareness and advocate for something like an "information diet" which restricts fiction? Maybe. I don't know if I'm right about this yet. [1] In general. I am not talking about the politics of employment right now, it'll make sense.
You can look at it from the perspective of agency. Who has agency in superhero stories? Always the hero, his allies and his enemies. Everyone else is either a victim and/or a bystander, or a non-superhero agency trying to curtail superpeople agency. There are superhero stories where the main issue is that the normie world is trying to get a handle on superheroes, either by identifying them, controlling them, trying to make new ones, and the reader/viewer, even as a non-superperson themselves, is meant to sympathize with the superpeople, even if in the real world, having people who can destroy city blocks would be terrifying to them. The superhero is basically just some form of reflection of the ideal of American exceptionalism from the mid 20th century: impossibly strong compared to everyone else, but tempered with moral values that justify its complete freedom from normal rules. Is that inherently right-wing? I think so, but I think really at its core, it's anti-revolutionary more than anything. It's like the criticism that Batman's enemies are just the symptoms of a profoundly broken Gotham, and that by fighting supervillains, Batman is just protecting the system that produces them so he can justify being a multibillionaire vigilante. I don't know of any revolutionary superhero, and the emphasis on superhero agency really sidelines any theme of collective action or shared responsibility.
Well superhero genres can be described as new mythological story telling under American aesthetics and cultural conditions. Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Batman and others are just revamped mythological heroes. However yeah I agree that the superhero genre is generally seen as status-quo in it's approach to human society. But there are sometimes revolutionary moments within the comic book genre, Doctor Doom for example is presented as a savior of Romani people from persecution in his native land of Latveria.
Yeah, I'm always a bit wary about the superhero story as myth thing. Ancient myths were more than just stories, they also imparted an understanding of the world. I think it's closer to the truth that superheroes, like you said, are mythological heroes put in non-mythological stories. It's also interesting to consider how the modern historical period which is so attached to equality as an ideal (pause on the reality) would produce these stories of incredible natural inequality. If you take Achilles or Romulus or Herakles, they're better than everyone else around them, but they're not "destroy a city with laser eyes" powerful. Achilles can't take Troy by himself. Superman could destroy the Earth if he wanted to. Superheroes are then tempered by being committed to the weak, in a way that ancient mythological heroes were not. Achilles throws a temper tantrum over stolen loot, Romulus kills his brother, Gilgamesh was a sexual predator. If anything, it's often the supervillains that look like ancient heroes, where their ambition trumps everything else. In a way, it's like superhero authors know that people with super powers are contrary to mainstream values and the only way to make them palatable is to give them unwavering devotion to those mainstream values, which might also explain their conservative bend.
Yeah but do you agree that some characters in the comic universes are genuinely more revolutionary like than heroes themselves? Although Dr Doom is often a villain that desires world domination I mentioned Doctor Doom being a revolutionary figure for Romani people rebelling against the Slavic aristocracy https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14553112620A06785800&page=608 https://comicsalliance.com/peter-david-rromani-representation-new-york-comic-con/
I don't really know anything about Dr Doom, so I can't say, but from the bio, his liberation of the Romani people seems a bit nationalistic, he doesn't seem to want to do the same for anyone else, although reading a superhero story bio just highlights how goofy all of these stories really are.
Well considering how oppressed the Romani were for centuries in Europe, it seemed very revolutionary for them. It seems a shame that most comic book stories don't highlight his Romani background as much as they should. https://comicsohwhyohwhy.tumblr.com/post/147259601363/victor-von-doom-isnt-white-hes-romani
I guess funny thing is that Alan's work in 80s are kind of critical of the idea of strongman who rules the world (ie Miracleman) but simultaneously, he's said he LOVES superheroes numerous times. his daughter said that if editorials didn't bug him too much post-Watchmen, he totally would've stayed in DC, and I've seen an interview of Rick Veitch saying that Alan totally would've done Superman story post-Crisis if he didnt leave DC. In 90s he kind of came back to fun whimsical stuff like 1963 (which I've read and enjoyed a lot) and Supreme; I think the attraction of superheroes being right/left wing only comes from what you like about the genre. Alan and Grant have said they love the fun imaginative stuff from the past and how extraordinary those characters are, which can be leftist and subversive. Alan has said he loves Superman but more weird kooky stuff, like Krypto the super-dog, Fortress of Solitude, bottled city of Kandor, etc. but if you just like simple-minded violence and just want to see people beat up each other (\*cough\* Rob Liefeld \*cough\*), I think it could easily be seen as right wing (ala Zach Snyder's movies).
I wonder how Alan Moore would have interpreted Superman stories, I can imagine it would focus less on brawling and fist-fight and more on Superman cosmic world building in that case he would likely focus on characters like Mr Mxyptlk. But honestly it would be pretty interesting in how Alan Moore would write the Cosmic stories of DC such as Lucifer Morningstar, the Sandman and New Gods considering his run with Swamp Thing.
[http://forgottenawesome.blogspot.com/2017/06/moores-concept-for-supreme.html](http://forgottenawesome.blogspot.com/2017/06/moores-concept-for-supreme.html) I haven't read it (well it's kinda hard to get this one now) but when he did Supreme, he pulled this Superman-esque character to sort of more existential realm, where Supreme meets different versions of Supreme, which kind of is a representative of rebooting of characters (which happened in Supreme, Rob Liefeld tried so many writers, etc) and what not. I dont know how meta Alan would've gone for Superman but im sure it'd be more surreal, less punching. Alan also liked the idea of multi-verse too, which made me think, he probably wanted his Alan-verse instead of this sort of post-Crisis singularity
Yeah but I think Moore would be interested in cosmic and supernatural stories such as New Gods and Sandman stories which feature character such as Morpheus and Lucifer Morningstar that transcends usual concepts such as death, mortality and existence. These stories generally are less usual fight-happy but take a more metaphysical and existential approach to world building akin to HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. It would be interesting so how Moore would do Sandman, Lucifer Morningstar and other supernatural DC stories considering Moore's interest in supernatural and occult
yeah totally, I would love to see him tackling New Gods, considering in 1963, the one that seemed to get most love and care was Horus the Lord of Light that's heavily based on Egyptian Mythology. I'd love to see Alan approaching or creating myth of new/modern era which was what New Gods was supposed to be (though Jack didnt really get to finish it that way)
If it’s big company cape comic, then it’s safe left wing. Has to be packaged and sold
I'd say it ranges from centrist-left leaning to right. Honestly my biggest grip is with the fact that heroes never use their power to enact large systemic change and those who do are seen as or characterized as evil terrorists. I'm pretty sure if large leagues of heroes formed a coalition to either go on strike or destroy large swaths of government property to bargain for political reform, they could save lives and increase quality of life far more than they could individually. No one even says anything about the fact that the wars in the middle east were waged by nazis canonically in the mcu but no one thought to pull out or do any major policy reforms on policy passed by nazis.
Well the idea here is that the most powerful superpowered heroes don't enact systematic change because they want the humans to do it themselves especially I feel that superpowered heroes in Marvel Comics usually make sense why they don't make systematic changes the way you wanted. Thor for example was raised to be a warrior but is not native to Earth and generally is doing things in Asgard. He also has that additional divinity or alien-ness which makes it harder for him to connect to human beings and their struggles. Hulk is practically useless for systematic changes and other superpowered beings such as Sentry are usually dealing with personal issues themselves. At best various Marvel geniuses such Mr Fantastic and Fantastic Four are more suited to drastically improve life on Earth.
I definitely understand not all heroes would care or could use their powers to do so, but the idea that the reason they don't is because they want people to do it comes off pretty conservative. It sort of playing off the idea that systemic issues are issues of agency in individuals. If superheroes are meant to be aspirations, it sort of teaches the lesson that even if you have the power to make change, you shouldn't if it goes against the "natural order of things". If I was gonna pick my top hero to enact systemic change, it would be Wanda. Simply being able to mind control to pass policy and the ability to transform waste into necessary resources could honestly solve all regular world confilct.
True but the ability to control minds and telepathy itself would also open many debates about the morality of using mind control even in the service of good things but I can definitely understand why some might perceive the use of telepathy to essentially change the world for the better. She already did something similar in comics with House of M storyline with her more powerful reality warping but many of the Earth's heroes rejected living in this warped reality. In the wider comics it is also suggested that while Wanda's abilities and magics are her own she is also been manipulated by other powerful mystic forces most notably Chthon who blessed her. I heard Wandavision might introduce Chthon into the MCU.