Why Is In Universe Criticism Of Superheroes Always Associated With Villainy?
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
because comic books don't open themselves well to grey
everything is black and white
and if you're not with the superheroes
you're with the supervillains
everything is black and white
and if you're not with the superheroes
you're with the supervillains
Because your typical superhero yarn doesn't have the ethical and moral complexity to deal with complex, nuanced issues. They're "feel good" escapist stories of good vs. evil, not political or philosophical treatises. Let's face it, the most common solution to most problems for superheroes is to run/fly up to baddies and punch them in the face.
Also, Marvel and DC love their status quos. It's the reason why most superhero "deaths" and other truly game-changing events are often undone/retconned within a few years. They can't even commit to "tap-tap no erasies" reboots/reimaginings if the deaths of the New 52 and Marvel's Ultimate universe are any indication.
I'm not saying they CAN'T tackle such subjects well, just that they're often unwilling to take that plunge.
Also, Marvel and DC love their status quos. It's the reason why most superhero "deaths" and other truly game-changing events are often undone/retconned within a few years. They can't even commit to "tap-tap no erasies" reboots/reimaginings if the deaths of the New 52 and Marvel's Ultimate universe are any indication.
I'm not saying they CAN'T tackle such subjects well, just that they're often unwilling to take that plunge.
Because if they are critical of the way superheroes fight crises, they are usually expected to provide an alternative. That alternative is usually worse in some way. Many of the above characters are using a valid point to promote their own agenda.
Because the heroes are usually the main characters.
There are however some characters I remember who were critical of superheroes that weren't villainous, and the hero admitted they had a point. For example, there was a district attorney in the Batman animated series, Janet Van Dorn (even the name sounds evil, but she isn't), who harshly criticised the Batman's methods. After an unpleasant run-in with his Rogues' Gallery, she admitted that he was a necessary evil, but she was going to continue to fight to create a city that doesn't need Batman. His response? 'Me too.' A shame we don't see her again after that episode. Dan Turpin was much the same way in the show's Superman counterpart.
Depending on the continuity, Amanda Waller may not be a villain either. Just someone concerned about what might happen if the Justice League ever turned against the government, or about the insane collateral damage caused by metahumans in general. Jonah Jameson isn't a villain, he's just an eccentric jerk. When he accidentally created a supervillain, he willingly took the blame for it and helped defeat them.
Because the heroes are usually the main characters.
There are however some characters I remember who were critical of superheroes that weren't villainous, and the hero admitted they had a point. For example, there was a district attorney in the Batman animated series, Janet Van Dorn (even the name sounds evil, but she isn't), who harshly criticised the Batman's methods. After an unpleasant run-in with his Rogues' Gallery, she admitted that he was a necessary evil, but she was going to continue to fight to create a city that doesn't need Batman. His response? 'Me too.' A shame we don't see her again after that episode. Dan Turpin was much the same way in the show's Superman counterpart.
Depending on the continuity, Amanda Waller may not be a villain either. Just someone concerned about what might happen if the Justice League ever turned against the government, or about the insane collateral damage caused by metahumans in general. Jonah Jameson isn't a villain, he's just an eccentric jerk. When he accidentally created a supervillain, he willingly took the blame for it and helped defeat them.
Would make for an interesting movie. Superhero movie from the perspective of police/government trying to reign them in because they are horribly destructive. Heroes actually portrayed as gray instead of white. Are they actually better for us?
All things that have been done but never with the government/police as the protagonist. Make the hero the Arrogant Jerk instead of the cop. Show the aftermath and devastation the battles that your heroes leve behind and make the police the champion of the downtrodden and the heroes an super elite uncaring for the populace, after all they should be grateful that they are there to protect them.
would probably not do well but interesting nonetheless
All things that have been done but never with the government/police as the protagonist. Make the hero the Arrogant Jerk instead of the cop. Show the aftermath and devastation the battles that your heroes leve behind and make the police the champion of the downtrodden and the heroes an super elite uncaring for the populace, after all they should be grateful that they are there to protect them.
would probably not do well but interesting nonetheless
Because for the most part, the people they are criticizing are good people who put their lives on the line to save others. Aside from the occasional "X Hero Goes Mad!" story arc, that usually pivots on someone they love dying horribly, or someone mind controlling them, etc, when they are just being themselves, they are a benefit to society. So people criticizing them are basically making unfounded claims, about people who have saved, sometimes millions of people.Agent_Z said:
Now I would say that they have a valid argument, if you take into consideration all of the "X Hero Goes Mad!" stories, but given how often comic books retcon story arcs, and literally consign them to some freaky time bubble where they never actually happened, so they don't have to deal with those ramifications, I take any "timeline" with a huge grain of salt, because it can all be re-written, making the arguments moot.
Also, it's not like their criticism of heroes is the ONLY reason they are considered villains. Lex does all kinds of evil shit for his own agenda, that firmly put him in the antagonist camp. The fact that he's also got a public position, and is openly vocal about anti-hero opinions, doesn't negate his "And my next plan will let me RULE THE WORLD! MMUAHAHAAHAH!" type behaviors.
JJJ isn't exactly a villain though, he's antagonistic to Spiderman, but never took a full-on villainous role as far as I know. His heart is in the right place.Agent_Z said:
Amanda Waller's more of an anti-villain than anything else too, a bit the same way Thunderbolt Ross was before the whole Red Hulk bullshit.
Eh...those saying JJJ isnt a villain...I disagree. He may not be a blow up the world Villain, and seem tame compared to even The Shocker, but he is not a good person. I mean, think of any scummy "News" person pushing fake smear journalism. He is a villain we face in our own reality.
Other than that WhiteFangofWar's answer is pretty much it.
Crime is bad, and if no one is stopping it, that is bad. On the lower scale it is usually cause cops arent doing a good job, intentionally or otherwise.
Then when it gets to a global or universal scale, well, even the best cop is going to be useless.
The real issue is that because these are fictional stories that like to maintain status quo, things arent resolved properly. Most of Batman's villains should be dead, either by Batman or by the state, and their prison systems suck. Low level repeat offenders like The Shocker or many of Batman's lesser recurring enemies should just be in jail for life. Characters like Norman Osborne (Green Goblin) and The Joker should be put down.
And even when they are they usually come back somehow, which I feel should not be as common as it is even with super heroes being real.
Other than that WhiteFangofWar's answer is pretty much it.
Crime is bad, and if no one is stopping it, that is bad. On the lower scale it is usually cause cops arent doing a good job, intentionally or otherwise.
Then when it gets to a global or universal scale, well, even the best cop is going to be useless.
The real issue is that because these are fictional stories that like to maintain status quo, things arent resolved properly. Most of Batman's villains should be dead, either by Batman or by the state, and their prison systems suck. Low level repeat offenders like The Shocker or many of Batman's lesser recurring enemies should just be in jail for life. Characters like Norman Osborne (Green Goblin) and The Joker should be put down.
And even when they are they usually come back somehow, which I feel should not be as common as it is even with super heroes being real.
Uhh, did any of you read Marvel's Civil War comics?
I mean I didn't, but based on the movie it seemed to do exactly that by pitting two good guys on each side of the debate.
I always saw it like the comics where someone like Lex Luthor would stop doing illegal shit and run for Senate or something, and then Superman would get in trouble for beating the shit out of him when had done nothing illegal recently. Yeah at the end it would always turn out that Lex was secretly plotting to blow up the whole world or something, but it was always cool in the beginning
I mean I didn't, but based on the movie it seemed to do exactly that by pitting two good guys on each side of the debate.
I always saw it like the comics where someone like Lex Luthor would stop doing illegal shit and run for Senate or something, and then Superman would get in trouble for beating the shit out of him when had done nothing illegal recently. Yeah at the end it would always turn out that Lex was secretly plotting to blow up the whole world or something, but it was always cool in the beginning
Because comic book writers are really bad at writing.
Look at the recent Civil War movie. It did everything in its power to make Captain America the hero, but if you actually look at the situation logically, he was a total fascist. Meanwhile, iron man is the villain for trying to find a solution that worked toward everyone's benefit.
Simply put, the heroes have to be the good guys so that the studios can keep making money.
Look at the recent Civil War movie. It did everything in its power to make Captain America the hero, but if you actually look at the situation logically, he was a total fascist. Meanwhile, iron man is the villain for trying to find a solution that worked toward everyone's benefit.
Simply put, the heroes have to be the good guys so that the studios can keep making money.
I mean, the lions share of that list punctuate their criticism with just a whole bunch of murder. I like to think the murder and various crimes make them the villain, the opinions just tend to align because you certainly don't agree with the vigilante stopping all your well planned murder. I mean that's just rude.
...how the hell was Captain America being a total fascist!? Wouldn't Iron Man be the more fascist side? Captain America wanted to not be a Government pawn.Fox12 said:
And the movie was different than the comics, considerably. Dont blame comic writers for movie writers not respecting the comic writers writings properly. The movie made Iron Man less of a totalitarian jerk, but in the actual Civil War plot, he was a totalitarian jerk.
That would be why I didn't comment on the Civil War comic book. The comics that I have read, that happened to cover this, were pretty bad. Look at The Dark Knight returns, for instance. The people criticizing batman are actually right, but the story bends over backwards to make batman the hero of the story.Saelune said:
As for the civil war film, captain America is clearly wrong. Let's look at what captain America is actually advocating for. Captain America wants to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, with no accountability whatsoever. Even if the country clearly doesn't want him there. How is that ethical? He's not accountable to anyone. But we're supposed to sympathize with him, because he's a "good person." We immediately see why this is a bad idea after hundreds of civilians are accidentally killed during one of his missions. Was it an accident? Sure. But that's part of the problem. He turned a crowded city into a war zone, and when people died he didn't want to face the consequences. Why shouldn't countries get to decide whether foreign powers get to conduct military operations in their nation? The situation gets even worse when captain America commits treason by helping a terrorist escape prison. A terrorist that tried to overthrow the democracy and help kill a large percentage of the global population. Why? Because they were friends. What a selfish motivation. Was Bucky brainwashed? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that he can't control himself, and is still a credible danger to the planet. That doesn't matter, though, because he's friends with captain America.
Meanwhile, what did iron man do? Well, he felt that The Avengers should be held accountable to either the United States government or the U.N. This is completely reasonable, since they regularly operate in other countries. Those countries should have a say in how the avengers operate. Government officials, who are elected democratically, should be able to dictate how the avengers operate. This also important since the avengers defend the entire planet. Captain America says no, because he wants to do what he wants, where he wants, and he doesn't want to answer to anyone. Would he be less capable of operating in other countries if he was controlled by the U.N.? Sure. That's the point. Iron man also set up a deal where Bucky would be kept in a secure environment, but would also be given medical support. This makes total sense. He's still a threat, so he can't be allowed to go free. However, he's still being given the help he needs to overcome his mental conditioning. Captain America says no, because Bucky is his friend, as if that changes the facts. Meanwhile, Scarlett witch has to remain under house arrest, since she accidentally killed hundreds of civilians, and is a former terrorist. This is just about the most lenient punishment imaginable. She has to stay in a lush mansion with fine cuisine while a federal investigation is conducted. Federal investigations are often conducted any time a military operation goes wrong. Why wouldn't one be conducted now, when she's a former terrorist and she killed hundreds of people in a country she didn't have permission to be in? And she probably would have been cleared. That's a slap on the wrist. After iron man tries to settle things peacefully, captain America decides to fight. Iron man understands that captain Americas actions could hurt all of them, and lead to global unrest, so he tries to stop him. He tries one last time to talk captain america down, and then they fight. Iron mans best friend is badly crippled, and captain America escapes. What does good guy iron man do then? He decides to put all of this behind him and help captain America. He then discovers that Bucky murdered his family, and that captain America knew, and lied to him. Iron man decides to kill Bucky, since he's a murderer, a traitor, has now way of controlling himself, and refuses to be kept in a secure facility. Iron man has multiple opportunities to kill captain America, but refuses to do it. He warns captain America to back off three times. Because of this, iron man loses, even though he easily could have won at any moment. The very first moment captain America gets the upper hand, he almost murders iron man, even though iron man spared him like three times. He changes his mind at the last moment and walks off.
Fuck captain America.
So you would rather Captain America literally do nothing cause those in charge literally do nothing, or too busy arguing whether or not The Ugandan Genocide was actually a genocide?Fox12 said:
Know what happens if Captain America isnt under anyone's jurisdiction? HE is accountable. But under Government protection he is protected, cause it is not like governments ever are held accountable themselves. You know the Nuremburg trials? "I was ordered to do it" was a major defense, a defense only viable when you are a military pawn.
People should not be punished for wanting to help others. When the US or the UN are not run by terrible people who dont want to help anyone or too stuck in beurocratic BS, then maybe give them all the power, but until then, I dont trust either to do anything to help anyone.
It's perception, really. and Retconning.
You want to know a tidbit of Lex Luthor's past? He turned to evil because Superboy messed up Luthor's experiment which in turn made him bald. That's one retcon that the comics put out. But going back beyond Silver Age, Lex was a ginger who just hated Superman and tried to kill him all the time.
Here's the thing about why people do stuff. They always do it because it seems like a good idea at the time. But is it good for society, or how is it good for the people who usurped power and decided this is how society should go?
Pol Pot probably didn't think he was a monster. In fact, he probably thought he was helping his people. He just went about doing it by killing 1.5 million of his own people and jailing intellectuals and those who could or would fight back.
The Ends don't always justify the means. It's Clich?, but it's true. Even if people had to retcon Lex Luthor once again to make him more believable than "I'm Angry Because SuperBoy made me bald!"... it doesn't matter. Lex might be convinced he's doing it for humanity's betterment, but that doesn't mean humanity is convinced of the same. And the fact that he goes out of his way not to explain his views or bend them in a matter that incorporates the will of the people is what makes him a Villain.
Lastly, Lex Luthor feels inferior to Superman, and that's why he's always critical of him. He'll explain it away any way he'll like, but no matter how smart he is, he will never be as blessed as Clark Kent. And that drives him insane.
The same goes for most villains. Have all the reasons for doing horrible things you like. Line up all the scapegoats you want. But at the end of the day, it's still your actions that are causing other people's miseries and those same scapegoats are rushing in trying to help those you hurt. That's what makes you a villain.
You want to know a tidbit of Lex Luthor's past? He turned to evil because Superboy messed up Luthor's experiment which in turn made him bald. That's one retcon that the comics put out. But going back beyond Silver Age, Lex was a ginger who just hated Superman and tried to kill him all the time.
Here's the thing about why people do stuff. They always do it because it seems like a good idea at the time. But is it good for society, or how is it good for the people who usurped power and decided this is how society should go?
Pol Pot probably didn't think he was a monster. In fact, he probably thought he was helping his people. He just went about doing it by killing 1.5 million of his own people and jailing intellectuals and those who could or would fight back.
The Ends don't always justify the means. It's Clich?, but it's true. Even if people had to retcon Lex Luthor once again to make him more believable than "I'm Angry Because SuperBoy made me bald!"... it doesn't matter. Lex might be convinced he's doing it for humanity's betterment, but that doesn't mean humanity is convinced of the same. And the fact that he goes out of his way not to explain his views or bend them in a matter that incorporates the will of the people is what makes him a Villain.
Lastly, Lex Luthor feels inferior to Superman, and that's why he's always critical of him. He'll explain it away any way he'll like, but no matter how smart he is, he will never be as blessed as Clark Kent. And that drives him insane.
The same goes for most villains. Have all the reasons for doing horrible things you like. Line up all the scapegoats you want. But at the end of the day, it's still your actions that are causing other people's miseries and those same scapegoats are rushing in trying to help those you hurt. That's what makes you a villain.