Unpopular Opinion

6216 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Post-Miller Superheroes are Sociopaths in Clown Suits (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is room for a successful argument that mainstream comic book superheroes have never been heroes and have always been champions of the status quo. I get this argument and can even see its merit. This is not my argument however.

My argument is that once Miller's Dark Knight stuff broke all sales records there has been a constant downward spiral of even this level of "heroism" and that post-Miller mainstream superheroes are today essentially just sociopathic costumed clowns.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not my main turn off but it ties into my main reason for why I've never cared for comics in the long term. Comics were written specifically to be episodic and "indefinite*. Indefinite things have no defined end, and no matter how good your source material you eventually just rehash the same old shit. So then you change the superhero somehow to make it fresh again and start over but eventually you rehash all THAT same shit. You can't ever deviate too much either because you need your antiheros for future rehashing. So joker always has to live. And he always has to escape. And he always has to be "a step ahead" so batman can overcome and catch him and be the hero and do it all again next week.

The best comics/movies/books/shows etc to me are the stories that have a distinct end. They can be short or long but the author(s) should know the ending before the first episode ever releases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yep. The only comics I really enjoy are the indie series that have a clear beginning and a clear end. Because they can actually tell a story, not just a narrative.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you're right. It kinda ties in with all this reimagining and deconstructing thats been going on lately. Doesn't help that the most popular superheroes like batman are the original super heroes, batman, superman, spiderman. How do you keep coming up with new Superman storylines after decades? You change superman.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There is certainly an element of truth to this, but it doesn't explain why everything post-Miller had to become "dark and gritty and sociopathic". Except that to me it says something about the people who want this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Silver age Superman was a complete asshole. Comic book characters change and more over time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like the comic about Lex Luthor. If I was a regular human in the DC universe I would side with Luthor. Superman is an all powerful alien who has showed up to earth and is meddling and telling humans what they are allowed to do and not do. If Lex Luthor is powerful enough to conquer earth, Superman has no right to stop him. If Superman had landed in ancient times, would he have stopped Alexander? Would he have stopped Caesar from crossing the Rubicon? What right does Superman have to stop the mightiest human from ruling over humans?

Anyways, after that comic I started to see Superman and the Justice League the way Vaught is in the boys, just a corporation of gods, and us little people just have to accept them and their constant destructive feuds, and hope they don't squish us.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't. Luthor isn't someone to follow just because he shares your genes. He's a narcissistic asshole who should have taken a bullet to the brain like Elon Musk should have years ago. For very much the same reason (though at least unlike Elon, because this is fiction and billionaires can be this, he is competent).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I feel like this would have been more true had it been posted 20-30 years ago. But while there's some sociopathic types in books today, it's a relatively small portion of the total.

I'd be curious to see what books in particular you have in mind, maybe from those published in the last month or so. I suspect what you really mean isn't sociopath, but non traditional-heroic-archetypes. Which I would agree with, protagonists these days tend to be more humanistic rather than god-like.

[–] joshcodes 0 points 1 year ago

I agree, mostly. I believe that Robert Patterson's portrayal is the best Batman we've seen in a long time. I agree though, that Marvel needs to find a soul before I'll be able to enjoy another film, and the DCCU is just filled with edge for the sake of edge.