Poll: Super Heroes vs. Fan Boys vs. Sales

[Basement Cat]

[HEADING=3]This thread coming to you from Copper Zen, the Escapist's Grand High Pooh-Bah and a member of the The Astral Projection Study Group [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Astral-Projection-Study-Group], Brovengers [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Brovengers], Cataholics Anonymous [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Catoholics-anonymous], Internet Bunker [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Internet-Bunker], Mod Forum [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Moderation-Team] and the Injustice League [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/The-Injustice-League].[/HEADING]

=================================================================================================

=================================================================================================

TL/DR: How much do fanboys' expectations limit and damage the quality of stories writers can come up with without losing too many sales?

=================================================================================================


I remember reading the fan letters in an old Captain America where a fan seriously insisted that Captain America's defined ability "to have at least 3 contingency plans for any situation" meant that Cap could whip Thor in a 1 on 1 bout.

"Thor wouldn't have a chance!" The fan insisted. "Cap would dodge lightning bolts and tornadoes and take the Thunder god out!"



Superheroes meeting and fighting each other for the first few pages of a book became so cliched over the decades that fans eventually started balking at the inanity of it all. Why DID Wolverine and Captain America have to tussle for 10 pages in 'this' comic when they'd all but formed a Bromance with each other at the end of their last team up 3 months ago? GET ON WITH THE STORY was the battle cry for such fans.

But fanboys be fanboys, as we all know. They MUST have their favorites win. This is the very reason that "X" vs "X" discussion threads are forbidden in Escapist forums. Not only are such debates a matter of opinion, but the very people arguing tend to be the ones least likely to be swayed in their opinions.

The obvious problem for many writers is the limits of their character's "Plot Armor".

Topics of discussion:

(1) How do you think fanboys' following their favorite characters influences comic book companies in building up said characters' capabilities? Wolverine was always popular among regular comic book readers but since the 1999 X-Men movie when he gained the attention of the public at large he became one of the most 'invincible' characters around.

I remember in the "Wolverine and Kitty Pryde" mini series from the 1980's a .45 caliber bullet to the forehead was enough to knock him unconscious.

In the Ultimates series the Hulk ripped him in two at the waist--and he survived. Then he was later decapitated--and he still survived.



(2) Do you think such expectations limit the stories writers can make? One of the reasons Batman is so popular is that he's not super powered, but as in the comic picture above he's been built up to "Above God Himself" proportions in the eyes of many, many fans---the very ones shelling out the money to buy his books to begin with.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I remind you that Kitty Pryde is more attractive and so is therefore better

 

[Vault101]

ignore the fanboys and just go for what makes a good story

 

[felbot]

no that's just a bad excuse shit writers use to get away with shit stories, "my stuff isn't bad, you just dont understand it".

pure and utter bull.

 

[Jayemsal]

I remind you that Kitty Pryde is more attractive and so is therefore better

The lack of X-men in this thread is baffling.

EDIT: OT: Batman has wiped the floor with Superman before, god I hate DC...

Also...

He cares little for your precious Superman.

 

[Angie7F]

Maybe not fans, but the business aspect of it may.
Sometimes prolonging the series simply because it makes money can be damaging.

 

[Eddie the head]

EDIT: OT: Batman has wiped the floor with Superman before, god I hate DC...

Also...
Imgsnip
He cares little for your precious Superman.

Who is that? I have no clue. Anyway I think Moviebob had it right with the Batman thing. The writer's just gave up.

 

[Bucht]

Imgsnip
He cares little for your precious Superman.

Who is that? I have no clue. Anyway I think Moviebob had it right with the Batman thing. The writer's just gave up.

That's Apocalypse from the X-Men comics.

 

[Evil Smurf]

So we all agree X-Men is fantastic? Good.

 

[Darken12]

Fans are simultaneously the scourge and the saviours of the entertainment industry. They are the ones that ruin and the ones that save. They are the Alpha and the Omega. Fans can effect an incredibly progressive change in society or they can set progress backwards by chaining the industry to outdated practices and philosophies.

The reason for all this is easy: power. When developers listen to fans, fans have power, and as we all know, power corrupts. Sometimes fans use it for good, but often it's easy to be lazy and self-serving. Though ignoring fans doesn't work either, since then the power falls exclusively on the creator, and power corrupts them, too.

A balance of power between fans and creators might sound ideal, with the author having to accept some of what the fans want and the fans having to accept some of what the author wants, but it's all too easy for everyone to be terrible people and produce terrible things.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I can't really form a proper opinion since I haven't read alot of comics compared to a fanboy. However from out of the comics I have read and reading some comicbook fans comment on an story arc/ issue etc, I would say sometime.
I wouldn't say the writer always applease the fanboys all the time due to how the stories to Justice League Cry For Justice, Marvel Civil War had happaned/ ended (out of character moment).
However I do agree that there are moments that they do alter/ change sometime to make the fans happen (mainly when they change/ reveal something and the fans hated it to the point of a massive complains toward it).

 

[Therumancer]

I'm a big believer in the eternally regenerating Status Quo, the point of having an ongoing character or franchise is that the central ideas are popular enough where people want more, and periodically come back for it even if they take a break. Once you radically alter an established character it ceases to be that character and also damages the fan base, especially people who come back to a franchise and find out that nothing is even remotely as they remember it. In my oponion if someone wants a radically differant character or types of stories you should develop a new character or franchise rather than using an established one... in cases where you do extreme things to established characters and franchises it's fine, especially in comics, as long as the status quo reverts itself after the arc is completed.

As far as "Vs." debates go I have mixed opinions. The general issue with such things is when your dealing with brainiac (as in really smart, as opposed to the literal villain) type characters, especially seeing as such characters are routinely presented as being fairly weak except for their mentality, which winds up trumping everyone. Truthfully in terms of what they can actually do they wind up being no weaker than the powerhouse heroes.

To put things into perspective in the whole classic Batman Vs. Superman matchup, Superman's arch enemy is a guy called Lex Luthor who is a super intelligent gadgeteer. A guy who has put Superman in great jeopardy over the years, and even beaten him (won rounds, or defeated him but had to spare him for some other story-related reasons). In the overall scheme of things another super intelligent Gadgeteer like Batman with similar knowlege and abillities can represent the same kind of threat.

Of course it should also be noted that writers do matter, people tend to rapidly forget that Superman is a gadgeteer himself even if it doesn't come up too often. He has robots and such that have capabilities very similar to his own. I thought it was kind of interesting that someone finally remembered this in the recent "Superman Vs. The Elite" movie. But this goes well beyond the central point of this discussion which is more about the type of characters than the capabilities of Superman.

This same basic problem applies to other match ups involving characters like Captain America, or Black Panther. Cap for example is generally supposed to be such an amazing strategist and tactician that when all the heroes get together in Marvel he's typically the one they all agree should call the shots and come up with "the plan". Given enough time and information he's pretty much supposed to be able to beat anyone. This creates a conflict when he runs into a more straightforward powerhouse character, but one that he's very familiar with.

One of the clever things about "The Authority" was that where most comics understate capabilities like that, they actually created a character where the hyper-stratagizing was mentioned and used directly. Wildstorms "Midnighter" pretty much spelled out how such things are generally supposed to work, you fight someone like Captain America or Batman, and before the fight even starts he's already played it out every possible way in his head and figured out
how to beat you, knowing what your going to do before you do. The Midnighter generally losing when he runs into an
enemy with say psionics who can read his mind (and counter his counter moves) or something similar.

The thing is though that it's hard to nessicarly come up with a solution in such match ups, because typically the super-tactics guy is going to exploit something on hand to each paticular situation. Something that might seem "cheap" but it is how these guys have their powers work. In the case of guys that combine it with gadgeteering, well, with preparation these guys can really suck... a point proven by all of the villainous gadgeteers that take down entire teams of super heroes (Avengers, JLA, etc...) simply with brains, resources, and technology.

One also has to remember in certain cases that seemingly weak characters also oftentimes have a gimmick besides gadgeteering and tactics. Captain America for example isn't a Gadgeteer, but to put it bluntly his shield is one of the most obnoxious things in Marvel, a weapon easily equal to something like Mjolnir in what it can do, and all the crap Cap has done with it over the years. Among it's features is the abillity to absorb and re-direct force, which is why Cap can bounce it like he does, and deliver enough punch to take out robots and such, as he swings, hits, blocks, his shield bashes become increasingly more powerful. "The Avengers" movie remembered this, and you might notice what happened when Thor hit it with Mjolnir. Another aspect of Cap that is oftentimes forgotten is that his chain mail is not just chain mesh (and explains why he can get hit by some of the crap he does, thrown through walls, etc... and get up) Cap is as durable as many of the "brick" type characters out there due to it, to my knowlege I'm not sure if they ever addressed what it's made out of, or if someone like Wolverine could cut through it, and if he did how much force his claws would still have afterwards (ie would he cut cap, and if so would he slice through him or just leave a gash like a normal knife...). It might have come up before now. The point here though is that Cap is termed a "low powered character" and like Batman or Lex Luthor, he's really not, he very much belongs with the big boys, he seems like more of an underdog than he usually is.

The point of this rant is more or less that by definition anyone called a "super hero" or "super villain" probably isn't going to be totally outclassed by anyone else by definition, exceptions exist (like everything) but are few and far between, pretty much every character has something going for them, and could in theory threaten any other character under the right circumstances, and comics have largely kept themselves going for this reason, pulling out unlikely threats for heroes (who ever thought that C-list villain could pull that off?), or doing the same to villains with odd heroes (for their concept) confronting them.


Also on a pseudo-trollish note I have Vs. debates, after all we know Squirrel Girl is the final word, having long ago made a mockey out of the entire idea, and demonstrated how dumb such debates actually get.

Just something to ramble about while killing time.

 

[Milanezi]

I think fanboys impact the story, many times negatively. And I believe we see that much more when it comes to movie adaptations, sometimes an adaptation means radical changes because you know, not everything that happens in comics will work on a movie. Fanboys however, will have none of that, they must have it the very way it happened in the source material, most times, when the producer/director give in or try to please both fanboys and "fans as well as movie goers", the results are disastrous...

 

[Milanezi]

Only an idiot thinks Batman can beat Superman, Batman himself mentions he stands no chance against Superman. Most do the whole batgod joke because of Morrison Justice League run.

Frank Miller's Batman, beat Superman pretty hard Than he faked his death, but that's winning in a "Batman outmasterted you way" lol
Between you and me, in a realistic point of view, only Kryptonians can beat Superman, or aliens who are just as strong for some reason, but BATMAN??? Batman is my favorite hero of all, but as the green Lantern so aptly put, he's "a dude dressed like a bat" lol.

 

[cerebus23]

i think the best writers often ignore the fans else we would not have fan outrage with batman rip, death of bruce, death of spiderman etc, if they were so enslaved to the fans then they would never ever dress batman like a homeless robin, or allow doc oc to take peter parkers soul or w/e.

nolans batman took many liberties with the character, a batman that stops being batman after 2 or 3 years and sits on his ass for 8 pining away for the woman that wanted nothing to do with him, then decides he is just going to be batman again, and world greatest detective? he had the daughter of his arch enemy as his ceo, apparently world greatest dective forgot about background checks.

there was not enough nerd rage to cover what nolan turned batman into. yet there was little of it.

so really when did writers feel so beholden to the lore let alone our expectations of the characters?

also superman is easily beatable all you need is some space rocks and a few billion dollars to weaponize it. supes speed would not be an issue if you just carried around a chunk of rock on your person. you could even go some of the more exotic ones and just take away his powers period. and someone like batman surely ought to know about red blue green yellow kryptonite.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

batman alone is 2/3 of DCs income, they aren't going to do anything to mess with that.
even obey the logic they claim as canon, see batman breathes in space.

 

[Basement Cat]

Only an idiot thinks Batman can beat Superman, Batman himself mentions he stands no chance against Superman. Most do the whole batgod joke because of Morrison Justice League run.

Frank Miller's Batman, beat Superman pretty hard Than he faked his death, but that's winning in a "Batman outmasterted you way" lol
Between you and me, in a realistic point of view, only Kryptonians can beat Superman, or aliens who are just as strong for some reason, but BATMAN??? Batman is my favorite hero of all, but as the green Lantern so aptly put, he's "a dude dressed like a bat" lol.

Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns put Batman back into the business of being a "serious" superhero. After the campy TV show from the 60's most people considered Batman to be a silly joke.

Miller's Batman did beat Superman in a 'realistic' way, which is to say Bruce Wayne spent over a decade and millions and millions of dollars coming up with synthesized Kryptonite which he used on Superman after Superman had had the stuffing kicked out of him by a multi-megaton nuke. Moreover Batman used a suit of powered armor to enhance his own strength enough to give Superman some bruises when the Kryptonian was reduced to near-human vulnerability.

Fun Fact: A major plot hole of that final encounter involved Batman using Gotham City's power grid to power his suit. The problem with that was that the city's power was offline thanks to the "Cold Bringer" nuke that wiped out power grids all across the USA.

In other words--Miller cheated.

Can you say "Plot Armor"?

But Miller's grim and gritty work on Batman and Daredevil put both characters back on the map for the first time in years. All of Batman's subsequent popularity can be pointed back to Miller's revitalizing the character in his mini-series which was based 10 years into the future after Batman had been retired for the same amount of time.

 

[Milanezi]

Fun Fact: A major plot hole of that final encounter involved Batman using Gotham City's power grid to power his suit. The problem with that was that the city's power was offline thanks to the "Cold Bringer" nuke that wiped out power grids all across the USA.

In other words--Miller cheated.

Hahahaha that's true! I didn't remember that!!! Not sure if power grid went down all across the US or only in Gotham, but it matters little, because surely GOTHAM had no power hahah Ah what the heck, that series is beautiful anyway, and WB did a hell of a job with the animation, saw Part 2 yesterday and it fucking rocks! Though there are a LOT of clueless assholes complaining about the level of violence, apparently people who bought it for their KIDS lol

 

[Queen Michael]

he had the daughter of his arch enemy as his ceo, apparently world greatest dective forgot about background checks.

Where was this?