No, that last "setting" part is only there as the last resort, if a character/characters can't be clearly defined as "superhero" by means of the tropes. Superpowers, secret identity, fighting crime, tights and a cape, plucky sidekick, stuff like that clearly define a superhero character.
The reason for the setting to recognize a character or cast of characters as superheroes is for when everything else is not so clearly defined. Like I said before, you can squeeze just about anyone in the superhero genre if you try hard enough just by saying "well, Superman can do this, so this character that can do the same thing is a superhero." It's about as accurate as saying that an ATV is a car because they can both drive down roads on four wheels. "But an ATV only seats one!" So does a formula 1 car. "But a car is fully enclosed!" So convertibles aren't cars? This is basically what I hear every time someone makes the case for X character being a superhero (and again, doing so for no practical reason whatsoever).
You could also argue that the cast of Mortal Kombat are superheroes. Sonya and Johnny Cage wear tights. They can shoot stuff from their hands or fly about, or uppercut a guy so hard their head flies off. Clearly superhero things. Peter Pan can live forever, fly, wears tights and is a skilled swordsman. All things that superheroes have done. I mean he's clearly a Thanos-Angel-Nightcrawler mashup, yeah? See how silly it gets? (By the way, not even joking, I saw a guy in Zone chat the other day, his name was Peter Pan. Sadly I didn't look and see if he was dressed as such, but a guy can dream.) That's why, to rein it in and bring some sanity into things, the setting must acknowledge that superheroes exist if all else fails. Otherwise, all things considered, you end up with the very broad definition of "anyone that can do anything beyond what a normal human can do is a superhero."
Which is as silly as saying "anything with four wheels is a car."
Here I am really, REALLY tempted to draw the most archetypical cape imaginable, make him do the most archetypical boy scout rescues ever... And then having him to deny being a hero at every possible occasion. And NOBODY acknowledging him in-universe.
I think "Not-A-Hero-Man" for a character name and "Not A Superhero Strip" for the title would work wonders.
Sure, but just like in Secret World, which people were arguing that the characters are superheroes because a guy calls you one, doesn't make it so. You can call a plane a bird, doesn't mean the plane is gonna start cawing. The guy could have said "with all that stuff you can do, you're a beast" and no one would be saying "well, he calls you a beast, so that means you're technically a wild animal."
If he's a hero doing hero stuff and is in most every way a superhero and is recognized as such, then it's quite obvious that you're going for irony in an obvious way, and no one will miss that.
You should really note that recognition of superhero within the setting is something I use only when everything else about the character doesn't exactly point to superhero. Your Not-A-Hero-Man is specifically created with superheroes in mind, from looks to concept, and that plants him firmly in superhero land, unless character names are to be taken absolutely literally, which no one ever has.
And yeah, the rule does work both ways. It's by no means meant solely to "keep out" characters that largely don't fit the bill. For instance, take a movie where one guy can do something like fly, but he's got no codename, no secret identity, no costume at all, just some shirt and jeans, and he uses his power to save some people from some peril, just once. Is this movie about a superhero? Maybe the world's first superhero? Well it depends. Do you think the movie Starman is a superhero movie? Why? Why not? If people in their world begin to establish those people as superheroes, then that's when we can consider them superheroes. Otherwise, "anyone who can do anything that a normal human can't is a superhero."
I mean, Biff, gonna be honest with you here. It seems like you have a checklist, and anytime we give you something that fits 90% of that check list, you say that the last 10% is required, even if it's a different 10% from the last thing we gave you. At the same time you're making statements that sound suspiciously close to "100% is not required".
And I think that's because the "super hero genre" is failing you when it comes to being something that can be tightly defined. When it comes down to who is and who isn't... Punisher is part of the genre, but Adam Jensen isn't... Thor is part of it, but Raiden isn't. Green Arrow and Hawk Eye are part of it, but nobody in that trailer is. Super Man is, but Goku isn't. These aren't "an ATV being called a car"... these are all cars, in some cases they're almost the exact same model.
I guess maybe you think that the checklist of tropes somehow strengthens and defines the genre... but to me it just seems to limit it in arbitrary ways.
Otherwise, "anyone who can do anything that a normal human can't is a superhero."
Actually, since they're a superHERO, they would have to both be superhuman "in some way", AND be doing something vaguely heroic.
Take Punisher for example.. he is superhumanly good at shooting guns and stabbing people ( I think he might also be superhumanly stealthy and have connections the average person doesn't ). The vaguely heroic thing he does is go around and mow down legions of criminals ( I'm not sure he actually verifies that they are all criminals first tho.. ).
Adam Jensen is superhuman in a more obvious way, thanks to all his hardware. The heroic things he does can vary on the actions of the player( I find non-lethal Jensen to be a lot more heroic ), but will always include foiling a huge conspiracy where a genius mastermind tries to throw the entire world into chaos for selfish reasons... well I mean that's just good old fashioned comic book plot right there. Like Pun, he's also out for vengeance over someone who as killed.
I mean, Biff, gonna be honest with you here. It seems like you have a checklist, and anytime we give you something that fits 90% of that check list, you say that the last 10% is required, even if it's a different 10% from the last thing we gave you. At the same time you're making statements that sound suspiciously close to "100% is not required".
Im not sure why you're having trouble understanding. "If checklist points 1 through 49 don't make it clear, then refer to 50."
And I think that's because the "super hero genre" is failing you when it comes to being something that can be tightly defined. When it comes down to who is and who isn't... Punisher is part of the genre, but Adam Jensen isn't... Thor is part of it, but Raiden isn't. Green Arrow and Hawk Eye are part of it, but nobody in that trailer is. Super Man is, but Goku isn't. These aren't "an ATV being called a car"... these are all cars, in some cases they're almost the exact same model. .
It's failing me how? I have a clear line that can be referred to when the question arises. You're the one saying that if enough tropes are met, then it's a superhero. Yet whenever I ask if anyone thinks Peter Pan is a superhero, they don't answer even if it meets several of their tropes of another character they think, or they say no and list some stuff that I don't agree with (fantasy setting, which I don't think is a valid reason, since Peter Pan crosses into the real world too), but nobody has said "well, yeah, he sure meets the tropes, so he's a superhero."
I guess maybe you think that the checklist of tropes somehow strengthens and defines the genre... but to me it just seems to limit it in arbitrary ways. .
To me, what's arbitrary is arguing for a certain character to be a superhero. Please answer the question: what's the point of arguing for Jensen to be considered a superhero? Does it have any impact on anything useful, or is it just so you can stick him in an online superhero poll?
Actually, since they're a superHERO, they would have to both be superhuman "in some way", AND be doing something vaguely heroic. .
That's a step in the right direction, at least. Lots of people don't consider that part when they're asking for costumes and they're told it doesn't fit the genre.
Take Punisher for example.. he is superhumanly good at shooting guns and stabbing people ( I think he might also be superhumanly stealthy and have connections the average person doesn't ). The vaguely heroic thing he does is go around and mow down legions of criminals ( I'm not sure he actually verifies that they are all criminals first tho.. ).
Adam Jensen is superhuman in a more obvious way, thanks to all his hardware. The heroic things he does can vary on the actions of the player( I find non-lethal Jensen to be a lot more heroic ), but will always include foiling a huge conspiracy where a genius mastermind tries to throw the entire world into chaos for selfish reasons... well I mean that's just good old fashioned comic book plot right there. Like Pun, he's also out for vengeance over someone who as killed.
I generally don't consider characters like Punisher or Batman superheroes, but for the sake of keeping it simple I have t mentioned it. (If you're wondering, I call them costumed crime fighters; just that "super" caveat.) The reason I bring it up now is just to say that considering these two characters, I consider Jensen to be more of a superhero because of his actual superhuman abilities. Punisher doesn't have anything super, unless you count fantastical writing a superpower.
Anyway, like I said, I would t call Jensen a superhero unless that's the intent of the work or if they label do-gooder cyborgs as superheroes in that world.
At the end of the day, I have that last rule because I think it's important to have a clear definition of the genre, and you say that rule shouldn't exist because you want it to be more inclusive. I disagree that it should be so inclusive because then you can shove just about any fictional character that can do anything beyond normal (for the sake of good!) into the genre, and again, that serves no practical purpose.
Im not sure why you're having trouble understanding. "If checklist points 1 through 49 don't make it clear, then refer to 50."
I'm having trouble understanding because people have given you situations where checkpoints 1 through 49 made it absolutely clear, and yet you still required number fifty. You claim it's only a last resort, but that's not how you're actually using it.
So what's the point of arguing for Jensen to be considered a super hero? Well, I could just say "well what's the point of arguing that he's not?", but I won't do that ( feel free to respond as if I had tho ). Quite simply because he fits the basic definition. To me there really isn't an argument to be made, superhero means "super human hero" and that's what Jensen is. Peter Pan is too. Punisher is clearly superhuman in some way - no regular human can charge alone into firefights for as long as he has and survive, even if he's just "superhumanly trained" or "superhumanly motivated by revenge". Not all super heroes have "super powers", some of them have technology or magic. Tony Stark doesn't have anything you would call super powers, he's just superhumanly good at inventing things - far as I remember he doesn't have a mutated brain or anything, he's just way above the ability level of other humans in some way, and uses that ability level to do heroic things ( or drunkenly crash into buildings depending on the day of the week ).
It's not so much that I'm arguing that Jensen should be included, it's that as far as I can tell he's included by default and your requirements seem like extra stuff that you added on for personal preference. To me, "super hero" isn't a setting, it's a character, and they remain what they are no matter what setting you put them in.
Because there are grey areas. Peter Pan isn't a superhero, but stick him in a world where superheroes exist as a real thing, and simply by association with that world, he could fall under the category of superheroes. You can check off several of the superhero tropes for him, so where do you draw the line? Nobody here has agreed to him being a superhero, and some have stated explicitly that he's not, so tell me where the line is drawn? It's stupid to define Peter Pan as a superhero, yet by the guidelines you've been using, he's as superhero as superman. The difference between my side of the argument and yours is that I have defined a line, and you haven't (or I've missed it).
Here I am really, REALLY tempted to draw the most archetypical cape imaginable, make him do the most archetypical boy scout rescues ever... And then having him to deny being a hero at every possible occasion. And NOBODY acknowledging him in-universe.
Wait, do you mean nobody acknowledges his claim that he's not a hero, or just, like, everyone ignores his existence and all the things he does? Because that one could be a pretty good mindscrew...
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
Im not sure why you're having trouble understanding. "If checklist points 1 through 49 don't make it clear, then refer to 50."
There simply isn't anything to understand. "if checklist 1 to 49 doesn't work then refer to 50" is the most hilariously lawyerish way of defining anything and you can't be upset for it not being taken seriously.
Seriously, if you need something that sounds like a biased legal clause for a definition to work then the definition probably isn't very good to begin with. Or at the very least the definition sounds like a bill purposedly passed with a bias to please a lobbyist.
I don't think genres can be defined that strict, especially when critics and audience for mainstream works often can't agree on the genre. There's always a fair amount of relativity and serious blur when it comes to genre identity of any work.
Wait, do you mean nobody acknowledges his claim that he's not a hero, or just, like, everyone ignores his existence and all the things he does? Because that one could be a pretty good mindscrew...
Preferably everyone and aways failing to acknowledge the character in-universe as a superhero archetype despite everything being made obvious for the reader.
Oh, no! More trolling! Seriously dude, I'm not paying attention to whatever you're saying if you're going to keep claiming that I'm upset every time I have a conversation where someone disagrees with me. Total troll tactics.
I would actually argue that Goku DOES count as a superhero. He's described in universe as a person who A: is a hero, and B: has abilities an ordinary man couldn't even understand.
then there's the "Great Saiyaman" incident, but that's actually Gohan, not Goku.
Sure, a quick glance at the last few posts didn't reveal it for me.
Here's the line:
Super Heroes are anyone who is superhuman* in some way, who uses their superhuman traits to do something vaguely heroic**. Not superhuman in some way? Not a superhero. Doesn't do heroic things? Not a superhero.
* - superhuman means beyond the accepted realistic capabilities of a human being. i.e., nobody is that well trained, or that smart, or that strong, or can fly, etc...
** - vaguely heroic things are tough to define, but it should in some way help the greater good and the hero should be doing it at least in part because they believe it will help the greater good, and certainly never harm the innocent. Their actions actually have to actually help the greater good - if a superhuman is doing something bad but believes it's good, then they're still a super villain. The hero should also face some measure of personal danger or at least great difficulty in the pursuit of these heroics, since it's not actually heroic if you were never in danger and succeeded easily.
At least, that's the line I've seen the genre itself adhere to over the years. The costumes, sidekicks, and snappy one liners haven't been adhered to anywhere near across the board, so they are not requirements.
And yes, this is a line that many many characters will stand on the "is" side of... but to be honest, the genre leaves itself open for that quite handily.
Super Heroes are anyone who is superhuman* in some way, who uses their superhuman traits to do something vaguely heroic**. Not superhuman in some way? Not a superhero. Doesn't do heroic things? Not a superhero.
* - superhuman means beyond the accepted realistic capabilities of a human being. i.e., nobody is that well trained, or that smart, or that strong, or can fly, etc...
** - vaguely heroic things are tough to define, but it should in some way help the greater good and the hero should be doing it at least in part because they believe it will help the greater good, and certainly never harm the innocent. Their actions actually have to actually help the greater good - if a superhuman is doing something bad but believes it's good, then they're still a super villain. The hero should also face some measure of personal danger or at least great difficulty in the pursuit of these heroics, since it's not actually heroic if you were never in danger and succeeded easily.
At least, that's the line I've seen the genre itself adhere to over the years. The costumes, sidekicks, and snappy one liners haven't been adhered to anywhere near across the board, so they are not requirements.
And yes, this is a line that many many characters will stand on the "is" side of... but to be honest, the genre leaves itself open for that quite handily.
Okay, so just as long as you're saying that within your rules, Peter Pan is a superhero. I agree with all your other points, but I personally have to have that last caveat because... Peter Pan, I can't say he's a superhero with a straight face. And I guess to you, Secret World is a legitimate superhero game. Have you seen Supernatural? It's a pretty good show, and you'd like it because it's superheroes.
Pretty sure I already covered them and said yes. They have powers, secret identity, secret hideout/lair, and superhero aesthetic in their costumes and theme.
Enh, the point I was making is that there's really only two requirements for a Superhero... 1: super, 2: hero. All the other stuff you mentioned is a set of criteria that may or may not be met by actual superheroes.
No, that last "setting" part is only there as the last resort, if a character/characters can't be clearly defined as "superhero" by means of the tropes. Superpowers, secret identity, fighting crime, tights and a cape, plucky sidekick, stuff like that clearly define a superhero character.
The reason for the setting to recognize a character or cast of characters as superheroes is for when everything else is not so clearly defined. Like I said before, you can squeeze just about anyone in the superhero genre if you try hard enough just by saying "well, Superman can do this, so this character that can do the same thing is a superhero." It's about as accurate as saying that an ATV is a car because they can both drive down roads on four wheels. "But an ATV only seats one!" So does a formula 1 car. "But a car is fully enclosed!" So convertibles aren't cars? This is basically what I hear every time someone makes the case for X character being a superhero (and again, doing so for no practical reason whatsoever).
You could also argue that the cast of Mortal Kombat are superheroes. Sonya and Johnny Cage wear tights. They can shoot stuff from their hands or fly about, or uppercut a guy so hard their head flies off. Clearly superhero things. Peter Pan can live forever, fly, wears tights and is a skilled swordsman. All things that superheroes have done. I mean he's clearly a Thanos-Angel-Nightcrawler mashup, yeah? See how silly it gets? (By the way, not even joking, I saw a guy in Zone chat the other day, his name was Peter Pan. Sadly I didn't look and see if he was dressed as such, but a guy can dream.) That's why, to rein it in and bring some sanity into things, the setting must acknowledge that superheroes exist if all else fails. Otherwise, all things considered, you end up with the very broad definition of "anyone that can do anything beyond what a normal human can do is a superhero."
Which is as silly as saying "anything with four wheels is a car."
The members of the Fantastic Four miss out on most of your tropes.
The characters in Overwatch meet more, and seem to be acknowledged as superheroes in the setting as well.
When characters meet the tropes, more so than some of the most iconic members of the superhero genre, and are acknowledged, directly or indirectly, as superheroes, what is the hold up? If it looks like a superhero, acts like a superhero, sounds like a superhero, is described in a manner fitting a superhero, exists in a setting described in a manner fitting superheroes, and is treated like a superhero in setting...it might be a superhero.
Enh, the point I was making is that there's really only two requirements for a Superhero... 1: super, 2: hero. All the other stuff you mentioned is a set of criteria that may or may not be met by actual superheroes.
The members of the Fantastic Four miss out on most of your tropes.
The characters in Overwatch meet more, and seem to be acknowledged as superheroes in the setting as well.
When characters meet the tropes, more so than some of the most iconic members of the superhero genre, and are acknowledged, directly or indirectly, as superheroes, what is the hold up? If it looks like a superhero, acts like a superhero, sounds like a superhero, is described in a manner fitting a superhero, exists in a setting described in a manner fitting superheroes, and is treated like a superhero in setting...it might be a superhero.
And that's fine if that's how you want to define superheroes. Put Super Mario Bros. in the superhero section of the games aisle. Mortal Kombat, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, RoboCop, Harry Potter, Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), All the Jedi in Star Wars, the Terminator, the monsters from Monsters Inc, the dudes from the Matrix, any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show, all can go under the "superhero" section.
That's fine, if that's how you want to categorize superheroes. I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong, just that I disagree. But, exactly what is the point of blowing the entire genre open to include all this stuff? You're basically saying any good guy that has powers beyond a normal human that uses his powers for good (thanks spin) is a superhero. Why?
Fantastic Four meet plenty of the tropes. They dress like superheroes, they fight crime and/or villainy, they're widely recognized as superheroes, they have super-gadgets (like the fantasticar), they have super powers, they fight super villains, I dunno how you'd think that they miss out on most of the tropes.
Enh, the point I was making is that there's really only two requirements for a Superhero... 1: super, 2: hero. All the other stuff you mentioned is a set of criteria that may or may not be met by actual superheroes.
The members of the Fantastic Four miss out on most of your tropes.
The characters in Overwatch meet more, and seem to be acknowledged as superheroes in the setting as well.
When characters meet the tropes, more so than some of the most iconic members of the superhero genre, and are acknowledged, directly or indirectly, as superheroes, what is the hold up? If it looks like a superhero, acts like a superhero, sounds like a superhero, is described in a manner fitting a superhero, exists in a setting described in a manner fitting superheroes, and is treated like a superhero in setting...it might be a superhero.
And that's fine if that's how you want to define superheroes. Put Super Mario Bros. in the superhero section of the games aisle. Mortal Kombat, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, RoboCop, Harry Potter, Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), All the Jedi in Star Wars, the Terminator, the monsters from Monsters Inc, the dudes from the Matrix, any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show, all can go under the "superhero" section.
Those characters are not acknowledged in a manner indicating that they are superheroes in their setting as are the characters of Overwatch.
Again, meets the tropes and are acknowledged as superheroes in their setting. Isn't that how you define a superhero? Because that describes the characters of Overwatch. I am not presenting my own definition of superhero, I am pointing out that the Overwatch characters meet YOUR definition.
I mentioned the fantastic four in relationship to your listing of tropes, "Superpowers, secret identity, fighting crime, tights and a cape, plucky sidekick."
The FF have superpowers, fight crime, and wear costumes. Three out of five.
The Overwatch characters have superpowers, wear costumes, fight crime, and have secret identities. Four out of five.
They're officially or in-setting referred to as superheroes? Well someone shoulda said something about that earlier. If they are in fact referred to as such, then that's all I need to fit them into the superhero section.
Soooo.... your list: Mortal Kombat, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, RoboCop, Harry Potter, Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), All the Jedi in Star Wars, the Terminator, the monsters from Monsters Inc, the dudes from the Matrix, any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show
My criteria(all three): 1: super 2: hero 3: The setting needs to be at least close to reality.
Mortal Kombat, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Pac-Man, This is so far from reality that it's impossible to evaluate 1 or 2. IS Pacman Heroic or is he a greedy jerk stealing what belongs to Inky, Pinky, and Blinky? Also, his abilities seem to be rather normal in universe.
Street Fighter, passes 1 and 2, 3 is debatable.
RoboCop, passes all three. so yeah.
Harry Potter, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, what's that?
Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), fails 3, 2 is dabateable
All the Jedi in Star Wars, fails 3
the Terminator, well, most Terminators are evil.... So it kinda fails #2...
the monsters from Monsters Inc, fails 3
the dudes from the Matrix, I'd say this also fails 3
any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, he's not that awesome. only the times he gets it right make the film.
the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), who?
Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show, Mordecai and Rigby fail 1 and 2, Skips passes those, but the whole TV show fails 3
Okay, so just as long as you're saying that within your rules, Peter Pan is a superhero. I agree with all your other points, but I personally have to have that last caveat because... Peter Pan, I can't say he's a superhero with a straight face. And I guess to you, Secret World is a legitimate superhero game. Have you seen Supernatural? It's a pretty good show, and you'd like it because it's superheroes.
To each their own, but man, Peter Pan...
Yeah I know man, Peter Pan doesn't fit a masculine stereotype. Heck, some people might even say the way he acts seems "gay" - I personally disagree of course, but I'm sure people have said it.
None of that bothers me. He gets to be a super hero because he fits the definition. So do all those other people you mentioned, and I can say that with a straight face. If it makes you have to blush and giggle, that's just what makes us different people.
Put Super Mario Bros. in the superhero section of the games aisle.
lol, is there actually a games store with a "super hero section"? Every store I went in all the games are just in alphabetical order.
PS - some of the things you're adding to the list are just silly, even under my definition. What heroic things is Pacman doing exactly? lol. Did Beast from Beauty and the Beast commonly do heroic things? Far as I can tell the only fight he got in was self defense - self defense isn't heroic. If you add stuff like that willy nilly then you can't really fault people for thinking you look like you're acting upset
PSS - Jackie Chan doesn't really do superhuman things, he mostly does things he can do in real life. He's pretty amazing, but not superhuman.
Yeah I know man, Peter Pan doesn't fit a masculine stereotype. Heck, some people might even say the way he acts seems "gay" - I personally disagree of course, but I'm sure people have said it.
Masculine stereotype? That's not the reason I don't put him under the superhero banner. That's a ridiculous counter-point. Any sort of feminine character can be a superhero. Don't even start to insinuate that this was my point, because that's just rude and transparent.
None of that bothers me. He gets to be a super hero because he fits the definition. So do all those other people you mentioned, and I can say that with a straight face. If it makes you have to blush and giggle, that's just what makes us different people.
Sure is. Except the blush part. But yeah, and all-inclusive "superhero" genre is a pretty silly thing to me.
Also, thanks for admitting that that's what you think Peter Pan is, because when I first mentioned him being a superhero, a couple of people told me I was just being ridiculous and of course he's not a superhero. Goes to show that I'm not the only one here with a personal set of guidelines to define a superhero. Nice, isn't it?
PS - some of the things you're adding to the list are just silly, even under my definition. What heroic things is Pacman doing exactly? lol. Did Beast from Beauty and the Beast commonly do heroic things? Far as I can tell the only fight he got in was self defense - self defense isn't heroic. If you add stuff like that willy nilly then you can't really fault people for thinking you look like you're acting upset
Okay fine, I've never seen Beauty and the Beast, I just threw that in because, what the hey, all-inclusive, right? Ya got me. In Pac-Man, the ghosts were villainous. Ain't you ever watched the cartoons? Okay I haven't either but I'm sure they weren't just selling cookies in front of Wal*Mart and Pac-Man came and shook them down for protection money.
Also, I don't get the correlation between throwing in silly things and me being upset. Making my argument less credible, I could get with that. But upset? Really? Winky-wink!
Soooo.... your list: Mortal Kombat, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, RoboCop, Harry Potter, Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), All the Jedi in Star Wars, the Terminator, the monsters from Monsters Inc, the dudes from the Matrix, any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show
My criteria(all three): 1: super 2: hero 3: The setting needs to be at least close to reality.
Mortal Kombat, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Pac-Man, This is so far from reality that it's impossible to evaluate 1 or 2. IS Pacman Heroic or is he a greedy jerk stealing what belongs to Inky, Pinky, and Blinky? Also, his abilities seem to be rather normal in universe.
Street Fighter, passes 1 and 2, 3 is debatable.
RoboCop, passes all three. so yeah.
Harry Potter, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, what's that?
Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), fails 3, 2 is dabateable
All the Jedi in Star Wars, fails 3
the Terminator, well, most Terminators are evil.... So it kinda fails #2...
the monsters from Monsters Inc, fails 3
the dudes from the Matrix, I'd say this also fails 3
any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, he's not that awesome. only the times he gets it right make the film.
the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), who?
Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show, Mordecai and Rigby fail 1 and 2, Skips passes those, but the whole TV show fails 3
How do you define your point 3, "at least close to reality"? You say Mortal Kombat is not set in reality, but it's based on Earth in a war against another dimension (very superhero setting type of thing) and a guy from Hell (Scorpion, and again, superhero setting thing that's been done a lot, from Inferno to even a main hero character, Etrigan).
Pac-Man, okay, but are you saying that just because he's a cartoon and it's not exactly Earth, it can't be a superhero? Also I'd argue that being able to eat ghosts is a "super power".
Street Fighter takes place on a very realistic setting (Earth), the only thing that's unrealistic is the super powers that the characters have. That's basically the most outlandish part of a superhero setting.
Harry Potter, I think meets 3 based on the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat arguments made before.
Deus Ex and Satellite Reign (video games) take place in modern to near-future settings and have cybernetically-augmented people as their protagonists. Basically, "super powers by way of technology".
Beast (of Beauty and the, don't really care about, that was just thrown in for laughs).
Jedi: faraway space doesn't meet reality? This would topple all the deep-space stuff that goes on in the big comics, but I could see that as debatable kinda.
Terminator, all but the first had a "good guy" Terminator, and he's not only fighting law like RoboCop, he's actually fighting to protect the entire future of humanity. That's heroic, even though it's not done by his own free will but rather from programming. I suppose that's actually an interesting topic of debate. Maybe the heroism in that is attributed to the programmer?
Monsters Inc.: I'd say that still falls in the realm of "mostly realistic but with an alternate universe/reality" like Mortal Kombat.
Matrix was far-future stuff mainly based around a virtual reality, but Neo's powers did translate into the real world. There's points to be had there.
Jackie Chan, yeah okay, you guys win.
The dude from Crank had like a bomb in his heart that would explode if his adrenaline levels dropped (or something, it's been a looooong time since I've seen it and it's not the world's greatest movie series so don't go out of your way to watch it) so, hopped up on adrenaline he could kill lots and lots of dudes. Bad dudes.
Mordecai and Rigby have usually caused most of the trouble but they use supernatural means to correct them, as well as Skips. And again, I'm not understanding your actual definition of 3, so I'll wait for that. Oh and don't be fooled by people here, I think these discussions are fun, not foaming-at-the-mouth rage-parties!
Hmm.. in hindsight my definition of 3 wasn't as good as I'd thought. The idea was a sort of 0 - 10 scale of total fantasy - actual reality. But superhero stuff tends towards the center.....
Id argue that a fantasy setting doesn't bar superheroes from it, especially since superheroes have travelled to fantasy settings before. Specifically, I remember a time when Hulk was transported to a fantasy setting, where he fell in love with a green-skinned queen and became her champion. Of course it's still grounded in the "real world" because this fantasy setting existed as a microcosm in his pants.
No joke.
Anyway, though the "normal" superhero setting is modern-to-future, I don't think other timelines should be excluded just because they haven't been done in the mainstream (or at all). Honestly I think you could make a superhero story about cave men.
Id argue that a fantasy setting doesn't bar superheroes from it, especially since superheroes have travelled to fantasy settings before. Specifically, I remember a time when Hulk was transported to a fantasy setting, where he fell in love with a green-skinned queen and became her champion. Of course it's still grounded in the "real world" because this fantasy setting existed as a microcosm in his pants.
No joke.
Anyway, though the "normal" superhero setting is modern-to-future, I don't think other timelines should be excluded just because they haven't been done in the mainstream (or at all). Honestly I think you could make a superhero story about cave men.
I ran a fantashy pen and paper game once where the role of magic in a traditional fantasy game was instead filled by superpowers. The idea was inspired by the whole Apocalype villain origin wherein mutants had existed since early civilization. Fancy code names, colorful identifying attire, the whole nine yards. Not quite a full on superhero game because not every trope translated well, but a fun mashup of fantasy and superhero genres.
Goes to show that I'm not the only one here with a personal set of guidelines to define a superhero.
At least you admit it.
See that's the difference: you're just repeating your own personal set of guidelines ( leaving one to question why you're even arguing... just say they're your personal guidelines, that they don't apply to anyone else and certainly shouldn't be used to define the genre ). I'm trying to remove personal interpretation as much as possible, and only going with what the genre itself gives us to go by. When you do that, you see that the genre doesn't have a list of criteria, primarily because nobody ever bothered to make one or ever had a reason to adhere to one during the creation of the genre. The process was highly informal and "just kind of happened", and characters became part of it not because they had enough checkpoints on a list but mostly because they were in comic books, being superhuman, and doing heroic things - the artists who created some of them may never have even intended for them to be branded "super heroes", but they became branded as such because they fit the bill, due to being superhuman and doing heroic things, in comic books. Since then, they've moved beyond just comic books, but the other two have stuck pretty firmly no matter what other checkpoints may be present.
See that's the difference: you're just repeating your own personal set of guidelines ( leaving one to question why you're even arguing... just say they're your personal guidelines, that they don't apply to anyone else and certainly shouldn't be used to define the genre ).
It all started with me just saying that if you try hard enough, anything can look like a superhero (see: Peter Pan). Not my problem if other people want to discuss it. I never told anyone they're wrong and they have to live by my rules or anything. I'm pretty sure we allow people to have opinions on this forum, and they're free to discuss them at length with anyone who's willing to do that. Do I really need a disclaimer in my posts that says "THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, GUYS"?
If people misunderstand and think I'm telling them that they're doing something wrong, that's not my problem. And my personal guidelines can apply to anyone that wants to look at it that way, so they certainly can be used to define the genre or to discuss what is or isn't a superhero, since the superhero genre is obviously this big-ol nebulous thing that nobody could or should put a bunch of labels on, right? People can do what they want with it.
And I think I lend an air of credibility to this since I'm an amateur independent comics writer/artist!
Go on, take that in the most serious sense, I dare you!
It all started with me just saying that if you try hard enough, anything can look like a superhero (see: Peter Pan). Not my problem if other people want to discuss it. I never told anyone they're wrong and they have to live by my rules or anything. I'm pretty sure we allow people to have opinions on this forum, and they're free to discuss them at length with anyone who's willing to do that. Do I really need a disclaimer in my posts that says "THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, GUYS"?
If people misunderstand and think I'm telling them that they're doing something wrong, that's not my problem. And my personal guidelines can apply to anyone that wants to look at it that way, so they certainly can be used to define the genre or to discuss what is or isn't a superhero, since the superhero genre is obviously this big-ol nebulous thing that nobody could or should put a bunch of labels on, right? People can do what they want with it.
And I think I lend an air of credibility to this since I'm an amateur independent comics writer/artist!
Go on, take that in the most serious sense, I dare you!
Which just makes it more confusing that you've been arguing so hard for so many pages of this thread. The "air of credibility" thing just sends you right back to trying to act like you're defining the genre. Yes yes you said your little dare thing; that doesn't change what you typed before it.
Which just makes it more confusing that you've been arguing so hard for so many pages of this thread. The "air of credibility" thing just sends you right back to trying to act like you're defining the genre. Yes yes you said your little dare thing; that doesn't change what you typed before it.
"Arguing so hard". I honestly feel bad for so many of you, thinking about what your normal, day-to-day conversations with people that have a differing opinion than you, must be like, if the first thing that happens in your heads is that anyone who thinks differently than you is angry, upset, "arguing so hard"... It's just a conversation. Seriously, calm down, people can have differing opinions and still be civil (except if you're talking about Donald Trump, this I've learned from Facebook). You're either trolling by trying to append emotion to my posts, or you've never had a person offer you an opposing opinion without them wanting to injure you.
You people are friggin' silly!
Also you've never heard of "tongue in cheek" apparently, but whatevers. I will cope!
I like talking comics and superheroes. It's why I got into not just reading comics but wanting to create them. I like debates. I like when other people can challenge my views because it's very often a learning experience and I'm not the kind of person who's insulted by someone who proves me wrong about something.
But sure, if it makes you feel good, make this entire thread about me "arguing so hard" and not just "talking comics". Your Modus Operandi has always been about deflecting and reflecting so I get where you're coming from.
PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE (probably, according to some people) FOOTNOTE: I know that "modus operandi" doesn't need to be capitalized. Try not to villify me for it! :P
That part was all about scrutiny of capitalization. Do you really compartmentalize every sentence you read so that you can rationalize it into some ridiculous internet argument?
No, of course not. Nah... Nope, never. Nah. Ever.... :P
Now? It's always been when you're involved. You start out with an on-topic argument about how I'm wrong about something, and then when your point is proven to be flaccid and weak, you sidestep into some other wild story about how I'm wrong about another thing until that proves impotent as well, and then theres no semblance of the original argument left, you're just there doing anything you can to discredit me, and it always falls flat because you're always flailing.
Notice how we're not even talking about superheroes anymore because you chose to make this about me and how wrong I am instead of talking about the actual topic. Happens every time.
Comments
The reason for the setting to recognize a character or cast of characters as superheroes is for when everything else is not so clearly defined. Like I said before, you can squeeze just about anyone in the superhero genre if you try hard enough just by saying "well, Superman can do this, so this character that can do the same thing is a superhero." It's about as accurate as saying that an ATV is a car because they can both drive down roads on four wheels. "But an ATV only seats one!" So does a formula 1 car. "But a car is fully enclosed!" So convertibles aren't cars? This is basically what I hear every time someone makes the case for X character being a superhero (and again, doing so for no practical reason whatsoever).
You could also argue that the cast of Mortal Kombat are superheroes. Sonya and Johnny Cage wear tights. They can shoot stuff from their hands or fly about, or uppercut a guy so hard their head flies off. Clearly superhero things. Peter Pan can live forever, fly, wears tights and is a skilled swordsman. All things that superheroes have done. I mean he's clearly a Thanos-Angel-Nightcrawler mashup, yeah? See how silly it gets? (By the way, not even joking, I saw a guy in Zone chat the other day, his name was Peter Pan. Sadly I didn't look and see if he was dressed as such, but a guy can dream.) That's why, to rein it in and bring some sanity into things, the setting must acknowledge that superheroes exist if all else fails. Otherwise, all things considered, you end up with the very broad definition of "anyone that can do anything beyond what a normal human can do is a superhero."
Which is as silly as saying "anything with four wheels is a car."
I think "Not-A-Hero-Man" for a character name and "Not A Superhero Strip" for the title would work wonders.
After all, it can work both ways!
After all, some things can be only parodied. ;>
If he's a hero doing hero stuff and is in most every way a superhero and is recognized as such, then it's quite obvious that you're going for irony in an obvious way, and no one will miss that.
You should really note that recognition of superhero within the setting is something I use only when everything else about the character doesn't exactly point to superhero. Your Not-A-Hero-Man is specifically created with superheroes in mind, from looks to concept, and that plants him firmly in superhero land, unless character names are to be taken absolutely literally, which no one ever has.
And yeah, the rule does work both ways. It's by no means meant solely to "keep out" characters that largely don't fit the bill. For instance, take a movie where one guy can do something like fly, but he's got no codename, no secret identity, no costume at all, just some shirt and jeans, and he uses his power to save some people from some peril, just once. Is this movie about a superhero? Maybe the world's first superhero? Well it depends. Do you think the movie Starman is a superhero movie? Why? Why not? If people in their world begin to establish those people as superheroes, then that's when we can consider them superheroes. Otherwise, "anyone who can do anything that a normal human can't is a superhero."
And I think that's because the "super hero genre" is failing you when it comes to being something that can be tightly defined. When it comes down to who is and who isn't... Punisher is part of the genre, but Adam Jensen isn't... Thor is part of it, but Raiden isn't. Green Arrow and Hawk Eye are part of it, but nobody in that trailer is. Super Man is, but Goku isn't. These aren't "an ATV being called a car"... these are all cars, in some cases they're almost the exact same model.
I guess maybe you think that the checklist of tropes somehow strengthens and defines the genre... but to me it just seems to limit it in arbitrary ways.
Actually, since they're a superHERO, they would have to both be superhuman "in some way", AND be doing something vaguely heroic.
Take Punisher for example.. he is superhumanly good at shooting guns and stabbing people ( I think he might also be superhumanly stealthy and have connections the average person doesn't ). The vaguely heroic thing he does is go around and mow down legions of criminals ( I'm not sure he actually verifies that they are all criminals first tho.. ).
Adam Jensen is superhuman in a more obvious way, thanks to all his hardware. The heroic things he does can vary on the actions of the player( I find non-lethal Jensen to be a lot more heroic ), but will always include foiling a huge conspiracy where a genius mastermind tries to throw the entire world into chaos for selfish reasons... well I mean that's just good old fashioned comic book plot right there. Like Pun, he's also out for vengeance over someone who as killed.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Anyway, like I said, I would t call Jensen a superhero unless that's the intent of the work or if they label do-gooder cyborgs as superheroes in that world.
At the end of the day, I have that last rule because I think it's important to have a clear definition of the genre, and you say that rule shouldn't exist because you want it to be more inclusive. I disagree that it should be so inclusive because then you can shove just about any fictional character that can do anything beyond normal (for the sake of good!) into the genre, and again, that serves no practical purpose. Its just a discussion. Nothin wrong with discussing differing opinions.
So what's the point of arguing for Jensen to be considered a super hero? Well, I could just say "well what's the point of arguing that he's not?", but I won't do that ( feel free to respond as if I had tho ). Quite simply because he fits the basic definition. To me there really isn't an argument to be made, superhero means "super human hero" and that's what Jensen is. Peter Pan is too. Punisher is clearly superhuman in some way - no regular human can charge alone into firefights for as long as he has and survive, even if he's just "superhumanly trained" or "superhumanly motivated by revenge". Not all super heroes have "super powers", some of them have technology or magic. Tony Stark doesn't have anything you would call super powers, he's just superhumanly good at inventing things - far as I remember he doesn't have a mutated brain or anything, he's just way above the ability level of other humans in some way, and uses that ability level to do heroic things ( or drunkenly crash into buildings depending on the day of the week ).
It's not so much that I'm arguing that Jensen should be included, it's that as far as I can tell he's included by default and your requirements seem like extra stuff that you added on for personal preference. To me, "super hero" isn't a setting, it's a character, and they remain what they are no matter what setting you put them in.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
In binary, 1+1=10.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
There simply isn't anything to understand. "if checklist 1 to 49 doesn't work then refer to 50" is the most hilariously lawyerish way of defining anything and you can't be upset for it not being taken seriously.
Seriously, if you need something that sounds like a biased legal clause for a definition to work then the definition probably isn't very good to begin with. Or at the very least the definition sounds like a bill purposedly passed with a bias to please a lobbyist.
I don't think genres can be defined that strict, especially when critics and audience for mainstream works often can't agree on the genre. There's always a fair amount of relativity and serious blur when it comes to genre identity of any work.
Preferably everyone and aways failing to acknowledge the character in-universe as a superhero archetype despite everything being made obvious for the reader.
then there's the "Great Saiyaman" incident, but that's actually Gohan, not Goku.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
Super Heroes are anyone who is superhuman* in some way, who uses their superhuman traits to do something vaguely heroic**. Not superhuman in some way? Not a superhero. Doesn't do heroic things? Not a superhero.
* - superhuman means beyond the accepted realistic capabilities of a human being. i.e., nobody is that well trained, or that smart, or that strong, or can fly, etc...
** - vaguely heroic things are tough to define, but it should in some way help the greater good and the hero should be doing it at least in part because they believe it will help the greater good, and certainly never harm the innocent. Their actions actually have to actually help the greater good - if a superhuman is doing something bad but believes it's good, then they're still a super villain. The hero should also face some measure of personal danger or at least great difficulty in the pursuit of these heroics, since it's not actually heroic if you were never in danger and succeeded easily.
At least, that's the line I've seen the genre itself adhere to over the years. The costumes, sidekicks, and snappy one liners haven't been adhered to anywhere near across the board, so they are not requirements.
And yes, this is a line that many many characters will stand on the "is" side of... but to be honest, the genre leaves itself open for that quite handily.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
To each their own, but man, Peter Pan...
Yes, this is obviously a loaded question, but if your rules say "no" they're not defined properly.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
The characters in Overwatch meet more, and seem to be acknowledged as superheroes in the setting as well.
When characters meet the tropes, more so than some of the most iconic members of the superhero genre, and are acknowledged, directly or indirectly, as superheroes, what is the hold up? If it looks like a superhero, acts like a superhero, sounds like a superhero, is described in a manner fitting a superhero, exists in a setting described in a manner fitting superheroes, and is treated like a superhero in setting...it might be a superhero.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
That's fine, if that's how you want to categorize superheroes. I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong, just that I disagree. But, exactly what is the point of blowing the entire genre open to include all this stuff? You're basically saying any good guy that has powers beyond a normal human that uses his powers for good (thanks spin) is a superhero. Why?
Fantastic Four meet plenty of the tropes. They dress like superheroes, they fight crime and/or villainy, they're widely recognized as superheroes, they have super-gadgets (like the fantasticar), they have super powers, they fight super villains, I dunno how you'd think that they miss out on most of the tropes.
Again, meets the tropes and are acknowledged as superheroes in their setting. Isn't that how you define a superhero? Because that describes the characters of Overwatch. I am not presenting my own definition of superhero, I am pointing out that the Overwatch characters meet YOUR definition.
I mentioned the fantastic four in relationship to your listing of tropes, "Superpowers, secret identity, fighting crime, tights and a cape, plucky sidekick."
The FF have superpowers, fight crime, and wear costumes. Three out of five.
The Overwatch characters have superpowers, wear costumes, fight crime, and have secret identities. Four out of five.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
Mortal Kombat, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, RoboCop, Harry Potter, Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), All the Jedi in Star Wars, the Terminator, the monsters from Monsters Inc, the dudes from the Matrix, any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show
My criteria(all three):
1: super
2: hero
3: The setting needs to be at least close to reality.
Mortal Kombat, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Pac-Man, This is so far from reality that it's impossible to evaluate 1 or 2. IS Pacman Heroic or is he a greedy jerk stealing what belongs to Inky, Pinky, and Blinky? Also, his abilities seem to be rather normal in universe.
Street Fighter, passes 1 and 2, 3 is debatable.
RoboCop, passes all three. so yeah.
Harry Potter, meets 1 and 2 but not 3.
Deus Ex, Satellite Reign's protagonists, what's that?
Beast (of "Beauty and the" fame), fails 3, 2 is dabateable
All the Jedi in Star Wars, fails 3
the Terminator, well, most Terminators are evil.... So it kinda fails #2...
the monsters from Monsters Inc, fails 3
the dudes from the Matrix, I'd say this also fails 3
any of Jackie Chan's roles, almost, he's not that awesome. only the times he gets it right make the film.
the dude from Crank (okay maybe he's one of them anti-hero superheroes), who?
Mordecai and Rigby and Skips from Regular Show, Mordecai and Rigby fail 1 and 2, Skips passes those, but the whole TV show fails 3
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
None of that bothers me. He gets to be a super hero because he fits the definition. So do all those other people you mentioned, and I can say that with a straight face. If it makes you have to blush and giggle, that's just what makes us different people. lol, is there actually a games store with a "super hero section"? Every store I went in all the games are just in alphabetical order.
PS - some of the things you're adding to the list are just silly, even under my definition. What heroic things is Pacman doing exactly? lol. Did Beast from Beauty and the Beast commonly do heroic things? Far as I can tell the only fight he got in was self defense - self defense isn't heroic. If you add stuff like that willy nilly then you can't really fault people for thinking you look like you're acting upset
PSS - Jackie Chan doesn't really do superhuman things, he mostly does things he can do in real life. He's pretty amazing, but not superhuman.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Also, thanks for admitting that that's what you think Peter Pan is, because when I first mentioned him being a superhero, a couple of people told me I was just being ridiculous and of course he's not a superhero. Goes to show that I'm not the only one here with a personal set of guidelines to define a superhero.
Also, I don't get the correlation between throwing in silly things and me being upset. Making my argument less credible, I could get with that. But upset? Really? Winky-wink! Again, you got me, but Peter Pan is a superhero in your eyes. :Giggle:
*OH WHAT A LIAR I AM!
Pac-Man, okay, but are you saying that just because he's a cartoon and it's not exactly Earth, it can't be a superhero? Also I'd argue that being able to eat ghosts is a "super power".
Street Fighter takes place on a very realistic setting (Earth), the only thing that's unrealistic is the super powers that the characters have. That's basically the most outlandish part of a superhero setting.
Harry Potter, I think meets 3 based on the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat arguments made before.
Deus Ex and Satellite Reign (video games) take place in modern to near-future settings and have cybernetically-augmented people as their protagonists. Basically, "super powers by way of technology".
Beast (of Beauty and the, don't really care about, that was just thrown in for laughs).
Jedi: faraway space doesn't meet reality? This would topple all the deep-space stuff that goes on in the big comics, but I could see that as debatable kinda.
Terminator, all but the first had a "good guy" Terminator, and he's not only fighting law like RoboCop, he's actually fighting to protect the entire future of humanity. That's heroic, even though it's not done by his own free will but rather from programming. I suppose that's actually an interesting topic of debate. Maybe the heroism in that is attributed to the programmer?
Monsters Inc.: I'd say that still falls in the realm of "mostly realistic but with an alternate universe/reality" like Mortal Kombat.
Matrix was far-future stuff mainly based around a virtual reality, but Neo's powers did translate into the real world. There's points to be had there.
Jackie Chan, yeah okay, you guys win.
The dude from Crank had like a bomb in his heart that would explode if his adrenaline levels dropped (or something, it's been a looooong time since I've seen it and it's not the world's greatest movie series so don't go out of your way to watch it) so, hopped up on adrenaline he could kill lots and lots of dudes. Bad dudes.
Mordecai and Rigby have usually caused most of the trouble but they use supernatural means to correct them, as well as Skips. And again, I'm not understanding your actual definition of 3, so I'll wait for that. Oh and don't be fooled by people here, I think these discussions are fun, not foaming-at-the-mouth rage-parties!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
No joke.
Anyway, though the "normal" superhero setting is modern-to-future, I don't think other timelines should be excluded just because they haven't been done in the mainstream (or at all). Honestly I think you could make a superhero story about cave men.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
Once again google image search did not disappoint...
though it would be better if his shirt had a P on it.
See that's the difference: you're just repeating your own personal set of guidelines ( leaving one to question why you're even arguing... just say they're your personal guidelines, that they don't apply to anyone else and certainly shouldn't be used to define the genre ). I'm trying to remove personal interpretation as much as possible, and only going with what the genre itself gives us to go by. When you do that, you see that the genre doesn't have a list of criteria, primarily because nobody ever bothered to make one or ever had a reason to adhere to one during the creation of the genre. The process was highly informal and "just kind of happened", and characters became part of it not because they had enough checkpoints on a list but mostly because they were in comic books, being superhuman, and doing heroic things - the artists who created some of them may never have even intended for them to be branded "super heroes", but they became branded as such because they fit the bill, due to being superhuman and doing heroic things, in comic books. Since then, they've moved beyond just comic books, but the other two have stuck pretty firmly no matter what other checkpoints may be present. This is cute. Someday you'll learn how old I actually am and then you'll have to change how you try to make disparaging remarks about me
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
If people misunderstand and think I'm telling them that they're doing something wrong, that's not my problem. And my personal guidelines can apply to anyone that wants to look at it that way, so they certainly can be used to define the genre or to discuss what is or isn't a superhero, since the superhero genre is obviously this big-ol nebulous thing that nobody could or should put a bunch of labels on, right? People can do what they want with it.
And I think I lend an air of credibility to this since I'm an amateur independent comics writer/artist!
Go on, take that in the most serious sense, I dare you! I once yelled at my sister, "YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD!" Facts don't get in the way of me disparaging anyone.
And now suddenly I am reminded of this little gem for the days of yore.
http://www.theyfightcrime.org/
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
You people are friggin' silly!
Also you've never heard of "tongue in cheek" apparently, but whatevers. I will cope!
I like talking comics and superheroes. It's why I got into not just reading comics but wanting to create them. I like debates. I like when other people can challenge my views because it's very often a learning experience and I'm not the kind of person who's insulted by someone who proves me wrong about something.
But sure, if it makes you feel good, make this entire thread about me "arguing so hard" and not just "talking comics". Your Modus Operandi has always been about deflecting and reflecting so I get where you're coming from.
PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE (probably, according to some people) FOOTNOTE: I know that "modus operandi" doesn't need to be capitalized. Try not to villify me for it! :P
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
No, of course not. Nah... Nope, never. Nah. Ever.... :P
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Notice how we're not even talking about superheroes anymore because you chose to make this about me and how wrong I am instead of talking about the actual topic. Happens every time.
Smiley face!