Take on Superhero movies

[Whosis]

With Spiderman 2 coming out today, I wanted to ask, is anyone growing tired of all of these superhero movies, or is this the blessing we've all been waiting for?

I remember in the 90s when the most I could expect was another Batman movie. This year there has been/will be Captain America, Spiderman 2, X-Men, and TMNT. It seems more reclusive superheros like Captain America and Green Lantern are being pushed into movie theaters, some of whom I've never heard of or ever expected to see (Iron Man). After how many there have been in the past few years, I think I would much prefer another Silver Linings Playbook or even another American Hustle.

Btw, has anyone seen Superhero Movie? What kind of movie or which movie do you think should be parodied? I think Spiderman (as in this case) was worthy of being parodied as it may have started this trend.

In the least moviemakers have not seemed to cater just to kids with all of these superhero movies, but I can't help but think it's an overload of marketing toward them.

[Lokasenna]

I'm fascinated by superheroes generally, despite never having been at any point a reader of comic books. They are, in a sense, our modern mythology - thousands of years on, and we still imagine anthropomorphic deities who protect us and who walk amongst us in secret. I find that really, really intriguing.

[YesNo]

I often like the parodies better than the original movies. I must have seen Superhero Movie, but I can't remember it except for the cover. I have seen Scary Movie 3 a few times and enjoyed it every time, but that's a parody of horror movies.

For a while there were a lot of vampire movies. I missed many of them without feeling like I missed out.

[JanVanHogspeuw]

In the least moviemakers have not seemed to cater just to kids with all of these superhero movies, but I can't help but think it's an overload of marketing toward them.

The fact that they're not just for kids is why there's so many of them, because everyone's watching them - it's just great box office sense. Frankly, I'd rather wish they would just target the kids, because this trend to try to make them more 'dark' and 'serious', which has culminated in the utterly cringe worthy Man of Steel, is what most deserves to be parodied.

[mortalterror]

I'm with Lokasenna. I love our modern mythologies. I look at the evolution of the tales as they change and become more sophisticated from generation to generation and I'm inspired. Do you realize how awful Bob Kane's original Batman of Detective Comics or the first Superman from Action Comics were? They went from being these cheesy, unintelligent, childish doodles of a lazy imagination and then got steadily refined through the minds of hundreds of different artists, until you aren't even seeing what was originally there. The stories keep hitting higher and higher marks with better and better artists taking them up. Eventually, they are going to come to a Homeric type polish as someone integrates all the favorite characteristics and plot lines.

Personally, I wish more superhero movies would come out with newer more contemporary qualities. There's still a lot of baggage hanging over Superman and Batman from the era they were conceived in. They don't kill. They don't use guns. Punisher and Deadpool use guns and kill a lot of people. But the success of television shows like The Walking Dead are signalling that other types of comics can be successful too. One's that deal with more adult type issues. I think we could use an adaptation of Fables, for instance. Perhaps a mini-series for Preacher or Y: The Last Man?

The superhero genre is a lot like the science fiction and the horror genres, full of schlock and second rate artists but with rarely realized potential. How many Macbeths, Frankensteins, Rime of the Ancient Mariners, Casks of Amontillado, and Fausts do we need before Horror gets taken seriously? In case you didn't notice, every King Arthur movie is a superhero movie. The Three Musketeers, probably qualify based on how spectacular some of their feats of arms were. Zoro and the Scarlet Pimpernel where both predecessors of Batman. Alan Moore has a very interesting take on the genre called The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where he builds a supergroup around Victorian heroes and even references Enlightenment era superheroes. The Victorians are guys like Captain Nemo, The Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyl and Mr Hyde, Alan Quartermain, etc. Professor Moriarty is a villain and Sherlock Holmes might be somewhere in the mix but I think he used Poe's detective Dupin.

Part of the genius of Alan Moore's graphic novels is how multi-layered and meta his literary world is. You have previous iterations of the League going back to Renaissance times when it was Prospero's Men with characters like Ariel, Don Quixote, and John Bunyan's Christian. Then there was Gulliver's League comprised of Gulliver, Natty Bumpo, Fanny Hill etc. Another league fits Dorian Gray into the mythology. Orlando and John Carter of Mars make appearances. So you see that superheroes have always been with us, and even constitute a little studied niche in the works of serious literature.

Maybe it satisfies that part of us that needs archetypes, that Jungian, Joseph Campbell part.

[YesNo]

I see a bunch of Alan Moore's graphic novels are in the library. I think I'll pick up Nemo tomorrow.

Although I don't follow them closely, my favorite superhero is Natasha Romanov or the Black Widow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncgjW1i8ZrM

[TheFifthElement]

I hate superheroes and the genre as a whole, both movie and comic book, because:
1) the 'heroes' are almost exclusively men, and
2) when the superheroes are women they're a kind of male fantasy type woman usually leather-clad or outfitted in a manner which is designed to be sexually provocative but completely impractical in terms of providing protection to vulnerable body parts, and are often posed in physically impossible positions. Plus they deal with problems in a very 'male' way (e.g. fighting).

The entire genre is set up to be demeaning towards women. I have no support for that.

I do, however, enjoy the Hawkeye initiative which exposes the blatent misogyny in the superhero genre as a whole by posing male superhero characters, such as Hawkeye, in the same outfits and poses as female characters: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ for example....

http://37.media.tumblr.com/8fe3769276b88f89b6d1b9034e7c7b10/tumblr_mnb4ayAeeD1rmx3kqo1_400.png

[Lokasenna]

I hate superheroes and the genre as a whole, both movie and comic book, because:
1) the 'heroes' are almost exclusively men, and
2) when the superheroes are women they're a kind of male fantasy type woman usually leather-clad or outfitted in a manner which is designed to be sexually provocative but completely impractical in terms of providing protection to vulnerable body parts, and are often posed in physically impossible positions. Plus they deal with problems in a very 'male' way (e.g. fighting).


If it's any consolation, most mythologies are like that...

Actually, though, you raise a serious point. The casual chauvenism and voyeurism of superhero material is both apparent and troubling: women are either helpless damsels, or well-endowed exhibitionists. Whilst the movies are probably slightly less guilty of this than comic books, nevertheless...

I wonder, though, whether this is not something innate to superhero genres, but rather to human society as a whole which simply finds a convenient expression through the superhero medium?

[YesNo]

I agree that the superhero genre needs more females. What I like about Black Widow is that she seems like an incarnation of Durga, a Hindu goddess. She's sexy, intelligent and powerful. And she isn't burdened with as many qualms about killing someone that mortalterror pointed out characterizes Batman and Superman.

[mortalterror]

I hate superheroes and the genre as a whole, both movie and comic book, because:
1) the 'heroes' are almost exclusively men, and
There are an awful lot of superheroines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superheroines Like hundreds. If you count Japanese manga, thousands. They just don't tend to be the most popular ones (in the west) because the readership is mostly guys. If women bought comics they'd get a larger share of fanservice. In the meantime, some of the more famous ones are Wonder Woman, Batgirl, Battle Angel Alita, The Bionic Woman, Catwoman, Rogue, Storm, Jean Gray, Elektra, Emma Frost, Hit Girl, The Inivisible Woman, Jubilee, Witchblade, Supergirl, Oracle, the Powerpuff Girls, Kitty Pryde, Psylocke, Red Sonja, Sailor Moon, Scarlet Witch, Buffy Summers, Wasp, Xena, and Charlie's Angels. Going back further let's remember the female knights like Bradamante, or Clorinda, and the ancient Amazonian warrior Penthesilia.


2) when the superheroes are women they're a kind of male fantasy type woman usually leather-clad or outfitted in a manner which is designed to be sexually provocative but completely impractical in terms of providing protection to vulnerable body parts, and are often posed in physically impossible positions.
Yeah, because tights, a codpiece, and a cape are so practical for male combat. You must not read a lot of comics because pretty much all the the men are posed in physically impossible positions too. Most American style comicbooks are drawn both idealizing the physique and with a sort of enhanced baroque expressionist style of drawing. Muscle groups that shouldn't even be visible are highlighted and straining even when the men are at rest. If they are in motion, their motions are dynamic and dramatic with all sorts of body contortions. They kind of get away with it for guys like Spiderman who has weird agility and I guess might be able to bend like Plasticman but a lot of the time they are taking liberties with anatomy. As for why women are drawn sexually provocatively, I can't think of a single male hero who isn't drawn the same way. Even The Thing and The Incredible Hulk, some girls would probably go for. There aren't really any fat, hairy, balding, middle aged, hunchbacked, superheroes with lazy eyes.


Plus they deal with problems in a very 'male' way (e.g. fighting).
And how else would you have someone stop criminals and aliens from destroying the world? Do you think people want to buy a ticket to a 200 million dollar movie about lengthy negotiations at a tea party? Or do you think they want to see explosions and dinosaurs? Also, I'm not sure that violence is the 'male' way. It's more like the 'human' way. Doesn't Clytomnestra solve her problem with Agamemnon through violence? Doesn't Kriemhild solve her problems with the Burgundians through violence? Or Judith her problem with Holofernes?

I'd also like to point out that while not technically superhero genre, Lord of the Rings movies and Game of Thrones skirt the genre with their action/supernatural elements. In Game of Thrones you have Brienne of Tarth a lady knight who isn't a sex object, a female queen slash dragon rider, and a little girl training to be a ruthless assassin. In the latest hobbit movie, which kind of sucked, you have that lady elf who kills every orc single handedly even though she wasn't even in the book. And from Return of the King there was Eowyn the shieldmaiden. In the Walking Dead you have the Michonne character, the one with the sword, and she doesn't appear to have any of the negative attributes you describe. Then there's the various attempts through the years to make feminist comicbooks like Alan Moore did with Promethea, or Joss Whedon did with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You can see Whedon trying again to bring strong female role models to action/sci-fi in Dollhouse, Firefly, and his run on Astonishing X-Men. You can see Ellen Ripley and other strong female heroines in the Alien franchise. The list goes on and on.

[stlukesguild]

I'm going to have to side with Lokasenna and Mortal Terrror here. I probably first came to art through comic books. I have come to recognize comic books, fairy tales, science fiction, and other popular narratives as being our modern mythology... our collective narrative. Zeus, Apollo, Venus, St. John the Baptist, El Cid, Faust, etc... were once the central characters upon which Western Artists and Writers built their works of art certain of a near universal recognition by their audience. This is no longer true. It is now Batman, Superman, Spiderman, the Black Widow, Snow White, Alice (in Wonderland), etc... As Lokasenna suggested, the very idea of superheroes is clearly built upon the superhuman figures from the past. I cannot help but recognize how Apollo... the healer, the shepherd, the bringer of light...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg/220px-ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg

http://genedorr.com/patches/images/Apollo/Ap17ApolloBelvedere.jpg

becomes Christ...

http://advenus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/marble-statue-of-christ-as-good-shepherd.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gXKZThIZOso/Tnw5whbJqjI/AAAAAAAABv0/S62PgHUQq8M/s1600/CHRIST+THE+KING%252C+detail+from+Michelangelo%2527 s+LAST+JUDGMENT.jpg

It does not strike me as too great a leap to recognize common elements with Superman.

Looking at the superhuman figures of Michelangelo... or the Baroque...

http://abiggerworldyet.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/502758217nufkmy_ph.jpg

I cannot help but recognize the predecessors of the superhuman anatomy, drama, and dynamism of comic superheroes:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpPdid6VzTDfyN6dDUoNyaPAHdMBU2a WNqI80j9y07D3W_Mm0y

The entire genre is set up to be demeaning towards women. I have no support for that.

OK... how is it "demeaning" to portray women... or men... in an idealized, sexually attractive manner. By this argument virtually the whole of not only Hollywood celebrities, Rock Stars, athletes, and comic book heroes and heroines might be deemed as "demeaning" to women and men... but pretty much the whole of art history and literature as well.

I wonder, though, whether this is not something innate to superhero genres, but rather to human society as a whole which simply finds a convenient expression through the superhero medium?

Sexuality is a huge part of art and literature. Obviously, when the majority of artists and writers are male, they are likely to portray their female characters in a manner that they find attractive. Contrary to the thought of more puritanical critics, a good deal of the nudes... indeed a good deal of the portrayals of the clothed human figure... from throughout the whole of art history have much more in common with pin-ups, fashion photo shoots, and portraits of Hollywood sex symbols than some would like to admit.

As for why women are drawn sexually provocatively, I can't think of a single male hero who isn't drawn the same way. Even The Thing and The Incredible Hulk, some girls would probably go for. There aren't really any fat, hairy, balding, middle aged, hunchbacked, superheroes with lazy eyes.

:rofl::smilielol5:

[JCamilo]

I would not call a modern mythology, because comics does not have the same function, but I would go easily to say they are the left-overs of heroic narratives. Even if we reckognize the authors of the comics, guys like Superman or Batman work more like oral-heroes, each generation using the characters to express whatever they want. For example, how the revamp of Batman in the 80's, done mostly by Frank Miller, was done to express his radical (and mostly republican views. It is the same Batman part of the slap stick comedy of the 60's and in Kingdom come is a defender of commun joe . Like the Arturs, lancenlots, I think in 300 years they will be polished to what somehow the collective believes them to be, some basic stuff. For example, Batman and Superman did kill in the 40's before the censorship and come of moral came to "dumb down" (yeah, they were already dumb before but anyways, another kind of dumbness) and today, the fanbase will react with repulse to see any of them killing except under extreme circustances. This goes as well for stuff like Bugsy Bunny too (some kind of modern Aesopism).

And since Japanese manga,where women has a lot of space, also portrait over sexualised women, i would say the reaosn is simple. The majority of the public pic up those comics from the teen days. Teenagers love sex. Even the weird anatomy of traditional super heroes (long legs, huge chest, small heads) are there for that. Even if they copy Victoria secrets models for the women and real athletes for men.


There aren't really any fat, hairy, balding, middle aged, hunchbacked, superheroes with lazy eyes.

however, how many villains could be described this way? Bald Luthor, Psycho joker, Skinny Scarecrow, Lizard-like Abomination, Face burnt Doctor Doom, Elton John Dr.Octopus...

[cacian]

superhero is a concept created to glorify the human physiology. that one can do more then us mortal to protect us from a notion.
the idea that one can fly pick lift weight like sponge cake shift monumental buildings climb walls is extremist and unimaginable. many however find themelsve trapped in the concept trying to replicate or do the same and sadly enough end up hurting themselves instead.
superheroism idea started with he bible with Jesus turning water into wine (imagery of bloodshed) and Moses walking on it/water oh and the virgin falling pregenant wihtout prior sex with anyone.
that is three concepts already claimed to religion.
is religion a superhero?

I would qualify Mad Max is a superhero. great movie. :D

[Lokasenna]

It's certainly true that male superheroes in comic books are given unrealistic body-shapes as well - they all have impossible body-builder physiques, even those whose powers have nothing to do with strength. And whilst many of the supervillains are of the Doc 'Elton John' Octopus variety (love that comparison!), some of them are just as unrealistically beautiful as the heroes - Tom Hiddleston's Loki, for example, is pretty damn foxy...


I would not call a modern mythology, because comics does not have the same function, but I would go easily to say they are the left-overs of heroic narratives.

Interesting comment - I suppose it depends on what one means by 'mythology' (always a rather tenuous term). What do you think are the functions of mythology?

[mal4mac]

Even The Thing and The Incredible Hulk, some girls would probably go for...

Maybe the Hulk, and, anyway, he always changes back to pretty boy Banner. But the Thing? From what I remember from childhood reading, "the Thing" wasn't attractive to women and knew it, which introduced a "beauty and the beast" pathos. But, even in that case, didn't his "girlfriend before the accident" still love him,... and we got lots of shots of his former rugged handsome self.

JCamilo has a good point about all the villains being hairy, balding, middle aged, hunchbacked, lazy eyed, or immediately unappealing in other ways. I'm trying hard to think of a "handsome devil".

JCamilo also has good point about how these heroes change to fit what is most acceptable in the popular culture of the moment. But I don't think bugs bunny can be compared to aesop, it's just slapstick comedy of the most basic kind, aimed at kids, just as superman and batman are 2D heroes easily assimilated by modern kids whose only culture is "what's on TV".

I do wonder why seemingly intelligent adults take all this comic book stuff seriously, it seems like a nostalgia for their own childhood, akin to adults reading Harry Potter, and doesn't seem all that healthy...

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[mal4mac]

I would qualify Mad Max is a superhero. great movie. :D

Good choice, but isn't he just a (flawed) hero? Do we need the superhero at all? Isn't he a character best consigned to childhood fantasy, like Father Christmas? Something that adults can indulge in now and again, with great irony, and (preferably) children around.

One of the continuing running jokes in "Big Bang Theory" is the obsessive interest of (very) intelligent adults in comic books. This, although being quite funny, is actually a slur on physicists. I took a physics degree and no one I knew read comic books. I was probably the most nerdy, e.g., having a garish sf poster on my wall for part of my first year. This drew a rather scathing "what are you 13" comment from a chemist friend... It came down quickly after that...

What great novel has a superhero?

[Emil Miller]

I do wonder why seemingly intelligent adults take all this comic book stuff seriously, it seems like a nostalgia for their own childhood, akin to adults reading Harry Potter, and doesn't seem all that healthy...




'Seemingly' is undoubtedly le mot juste here.

[Helga]

I love Superhero movies and I am very excited to see this new take on TMNT. When I was a kid, like someone before me said, there were just a few Batman movies and not much more. Keaton is still my favourite Batman. I like the fact that there are more movies in this genre now cause this is mainly what I watch, superheroes and sci-fi. X-men has a good variety of heroes and anti-heroes of both genders. I am not going to say I like the way women are portrayed in all of them but some are just great.

There is a kind of hyper-sexuality about most heroes these days, just look at the Arrow tv show, everyone on that show looks like an underwear model. even the 'nerdy girl with glasses to hide her beauty' is sexy, and that is a superhero movie stereotype.

I read a few comics as a kid both superhero type and Fables and such but I am no expert.

I think the modern myth comparison has a lot of truth in it, I put most of these heroes in Joseph Campbells 'formula' and they fit just like the old myths do. But the 'war zone' in these movies is changing from the 90's. They are not fighting a few villains or one, they are fighting a huge war in almost every movie, just look at the new Avengers movie, they are fighting in South Korea. And Captain America is fighting on a big front too, and that story is continued in the Agents of Shield tv show.

I love superhero movies but I wear a few 'glasses' other then 3d when I see them. They can never show a realistic world, and maybe that is OK.

I heard 3 actors from Man of Steel had to be on a special diet for months to get the look and muscles of a kryptonian, I can't say that look annoyed me at all and I know of a few people who see these movies for the actors not the story. I don't watch romantic comedies so I won't complain if I get a friend to see Captain America even though we are have different reasons for seeing it.

[TheFifthElement]

Actually, though, you raise a serious point. The casual chauvenism and voyeurism of superhero material is both apparent and troubling: women are either helpless damsels, or well-endowed exhibitionists. Whilst the movies are probably slightly less guilty of this than comic books, nevertheless...

I wonder, though, whether this is not something innate to superhero genres, but rather to human society as a whole which simply finds a convenient expression through the superhero medium?

I think it is present in society, but heavily prevalent in the superhero genre. I'm not sure the movies are any better. For example, take one of the early posters for The Avengers Assemble (which was dropped, not surprisingly). There's a woman in it, of course hidden away at the back but not so far in the back that you can't see both her t*ts and a**. You can read about it in this article, which includes an artist's response to how ridiculous it is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/avengers-movie-poster-sexist_n_1507914.html


Yeah, because tights, a codpiece, and a cape are so practical for male combat. You must not read a lot of comics because pretty much all the the men are posed in physically impossible positions too.
Um...ever watched WWE? Take away the cape and you've pretty much described the general outfit. And where men are portrayed in physically impossible positions this is no doubt to emphasises strength and physical prowess, as opposed to ensuring their t*ts and a** are shown in the picture at the same time, but perhaps you can show some examples of where this occurs. That the superhero industry has an issue with its portrayal of women is a generally accepted problem with the genre, as you can read in the article posted above and here: http://www.policymic.com/articles/20687/dc-comics-fires-top-female-writer-for-refusing-to-comply-with-company-s-sexism
and here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/28/women-comic-book-sexism
and here: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/321689/scitech/geeksandgaming/comics-aren-t-for-women-say-comics-creators-mark-millar-todd-mcfarlane
and here: https://theweek.com/article/index/248288/girls-on-film-how-sexism-is-destroying-the-comic-book-industry
and this one was just yesterday: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/03/wonder-girl-breasts-sexism-comics
and that's just a small sampling of what's out there.


And how else would you have someone stop criminals and aliens from destroying the world? Do you think people want to buy a ticket to a 200 million dollar movie about lengthy negotiations at a tea party?

That's a silly extreme and you know it. Actually I wouldn't pay to watch a superhero movie because they're invariably boring and predictable. But do you really have to ask the question? Intelligence, brains, trickery. Instead the superhero genre is locked in a model which relies on misogyny and violence. So what if Hollywood spends a lot of money on it. That doesn't make it good.




OK... how is it "demeaning" to portray women... or men... in an idealized, sexually attractive manner.
I'm surprised you have to ask. The female characters in the superhero genre are 'idealised'? I don't think so. What they are is objectified and hypersexualised which is a kind of 'idealism' which is based on male desire and defines women through a male gaze. Surely an 'idealised' women would take into account how women want them to be portrayed? But they don't, and they don't to the extent that they make the characters implausible (not that superheroes are plausible, but even less plausible than their male counterparts) which means that the character, the female, is secondary to the desire of the male drawing it and viewing it. How is that empowering to or respectful of women? These characters are nothing more than masturbatory fantasies, which in many respects I have no issue with but it's the dishonesty and denial that really ticks me off. An idealised female figure, for a character who is fighting injustice and crime in that wham, biff, pow version of superheroics, would be boyish, they would have muscles. Head sized breasts would be rare. Female wobbly bits get in the way of all that kickfighting, which any woman with breasts can tell you, but then they wouldn't look so enticing with a six pack and muscly arms and no t*ts or ar*se to speak of, would they? And the idea that the men are drawn in a hypersexual way is just another way of trying to throw the gaze away from the inherent misogyny in the genre. For one it is a male view of what 'hypersexual' means, for two there is significantly less emphasis on the sexual organs (e.g. superman's super c*ck isn't centre stage and he's rarely posed in a position to ensure that you get a good view of that and his manly globes at the same time), thirdly the emphasis of attributes for the men make much more sense in the context of the role of the character - the emphasis is on strength and physical prowess which again are attributes which put male values at centre stage. They are not sex toys in cartoon form. There's a big difference.



And since Japanese manga,where women has a lot of space, also portrait over sexualised women, i would say the reaosn is simple. The majority of the public pic up those comics from the teen days. Teenagers love sex. Even the weird anatomy of traditional super heroes (long legs, huge chest, small heads) are there for that. Even if they copy Victoria secrets models for the women and real athletes for men.

Yes, I think you are right that the genre appeals to a certain demographic which is probably why sales are falling. Manga I think is a separate issue. There is, I think, a larger range in Manga but it also relies heavily on hypersexualised female characters, and more worryingly often those characters are very childish in appearance (though not their breasts, they're always whopping).




JCamilo also has good point about how these heroes change to fit what is most acceptable in the popular culture of the moment. But I don't think bugs bunny can be compared to aesop, it's just slapstick comedy of the most basic kind, aimed at kids, just as superman and batman are 2D heroes easily assimilated by modern kids whose only culture is "what's on TV".

I do wonder why seemingly intelligent adults take all this comic book stuff seriously, it seems like a nostalgia for their own childhood, akin to adults reading Harry Potter, and doesn't seem all that healthy...


I think you're right about the 2D element to the superheroes. They are very simplistic characters. I would rather my kids read the Prose Edda than Thor, though a graphic novel like Maus or Persepolis are quite different propositions to their superhero cousins.

[stlukesguild]

And where men are portrayed in physically impossible positions this is no doubt to emphasises strength and physical prowess, as opposed to ensuring their t*ts and a** are shown in the picture at the same time...

Because, of course, strength and physical prowess have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual attraction?

That the superhero industry has an issue with its portrayal of women is a generally accepted problem with the genre, as you can read in the article posted above and here:

OK... the first article is entitled: DC Comics Fires Top Female Writer For Refusing to Comply with Company's Sexism. Most intelligent individuals would employ a degree of critical thought when confronted by such a claim. A writer was fired. This much we know. We may presume that the reasons have something to do with refusing to comply with the expectations of her employers... but to draw more conclusions...

Undoubtedly comic books are laden with fantasy... including sexual fantasy. But so are a great many works of art... whether they be films, paintings, sculpture, print, novels, etc... One could easily do a search on the internet and come up with a slew of pseudo-scholarly articles decrying the sexism of Shakespeare or Rubens or Hollywood films, etc...

mortalterror- And how else would you have someone stop criminals and aliens from destroying the world? Do you think people want to buy a ticket to a 200 million dollar movie about lengthy negotiations at a tea party?

That's a silly extreme and you know it. Actually I wouldn't pay to watch a superhero movie because they're invariably boring and predictable. But do you really have to ask the question?

You find nothing of value in comic books/superheroes and so you feel qualified to make sweeping statements dismissing the entire genre. One can make sweeping statements dismissing the whole of modern literature, contemporary poetry, Hollywood films, pop music, modern painting, etc... in a similar manner. Such blanket statements are just as predictable... especially when they avoid offering any real critical thought, but rather fall back (repeatedly) on the strategy of "Do you really have to ask that question?"

Intelligence, brains, trickery. Instead the superhero genre is locked in a model which relies on misogyny and violence. So what if Hollywood spends a lot of money on it. That doesn't make it good.

From my rather limited experience with the genre of comic books and superheroes I must say that intelligence, brains, and trickery are quite often employed. Indeed, it seems a common theme is the hero (heroes) overcome by a villain with even greater strength, only prevailing due to combining his/her strength with intelligence, brains, and trickery. Here I might ask just how the heroes of Homer, Virgil, Firdowsi, etc... differ with regards to use of violence?

OK... how is it "demeaning" to portray women... or men... in an idealized, sexually attractive manner.

I'm surprised you have to ask.

And once again.:rolleyes5: (I can roll my eyes and assume a moral superiority just as well)

The female characters in the superhero genre are 'idealised'? I don't think so. What they are is objectified and hypersexualised which is a kind of 'idealism' which is based on male desire and defines women through a male gaze.

In other words, the characters are "idealized". Objectified? Please inform me how an artist might paint or sculpt any man or woman... or even an apple, for that matter, without "objectifying" it. The artist cannot help but impose his or her ideas, values, standards, feeling etc... upon whatever subject he or she is rendering. The audience does the same. Sometimes the two coincide. Often the audience sees something quite different from the artist's intentions. This can't be helped as every viewer brings with them their own experiences, feelings, values, standards, etc...

Surely an 'idealised' women would take into account how women want them to be portrayed?

I'm starting to question your grasp of just how art is made. Personally, as an artist, I give very little consideration to how the diverse members of my potential audience wish that I would portray whatever it is I am portraying. I doubt that male artists such as Rubens, Cranach, Titian, Degas, Michelangelo, etc... gave a great deal of thought to how women might wish to be portrayed. I doubt most of the writers of so-called "chick lit" or makers of "chick flics" are overly concerned with how men would wish to be portrayed in those genre. Obviously comic books and superhero blockbusters are directed at an audience that is predominantly male.

As a member of the audience I don't expect artists to create by committee... to draw or paint or sculpt or write in order to meet some notions of what is "proper". I would prefer that an artist honestly offend me, than that he or she sweep real feelings, passions, desires, etc... under the rug and create to the expectations of others. And whom?

But they don't, and they don't to the extent that they make the characters implausible (not that superheroes are plausible, but even less plausible than their male counterparts) which means that the character, the female, is secondary to the desire of the male drawing it and viewing it. How is that empowering to or respectful of women? These characters are nothing more than masturbatory fantasies, which in many respects I have no issue with but it's the dishonesty and denial that really ticks me off.

Again... how is this so far removed from what might be deemed as "fine art"?

http://haverfordmwh.pbworks.com/f/1287016415/donatello-david2.jpg

Donatello's David is an effeminate "pretty boy". Quite certainly a sexual fantasy of the homosexual artist. His costume is as absurd as any you might find in today's comic books. He is dressed in a pair of ornate leather boots and a flouncy flowered hat. And nothing else. And in this garb he set off to battle against the giant Goliath?!

http://uploads5.wikipaintings.org/images/henri-matisse/seated-odalisque-1922.jpg

And what do we make of Matisse' "Odalisques"? The artist presents us with an array of paintings of nude or scantily clad women set in the European fantasy of a Middle-Easter/Islamic harem filled with luxurious silks, exquisite patterns and delicious perfumes. Brilliant formal innovations, to be sure... but also most certainly sexual fantasies as well.

An idealised female figure, for a character who is fighting injustice and crime in that wham, biff, pow version of superheroics, would be boyish, they would have muscles.

No... an idealized figure would be rendered in whatever manner the artists feel is ideal. For Botticelli, this ideal is thin and elongated with long flowing blonde hair...

http://www.cgexplorer.com/_sys/images/venus-botticelli.jpg

For Rubens, the idea would be a soft, fleshy blonde... like his own wife...

http://www.khm.at/Archiv/Ausstellungen/rubens/img/khm/pelz_250.jpg

For Michelangelo... the ideal is male... and bursting forth with superhuman muscles...

http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/images/Saved-Rejoice-Michelangelo.jpg

And the idea that the men are drawn in a hypersexual way is just another way of trying to throw the gaze away from the inherent misogyny in the genre.

So the portrayal of women as sexually attractive is misogynistic... but the portrayal of men as just as sexually attractive is not?

For one it is a male view of what 'hypersexual' means, for two there is significantly less emphasis on the sexual organs (e.g. superman's super c*ck isn't centre stage and he's rarely posed in a position to ensure that you get a good view of that and his manly globes at the same time), thirdly the emphasis of attributes for the men make much more sense in the context of the role of the character - the emphasis is on strength and physical prowess which again are attributes which put male values at centre stage.

You suggest you don't watch super hero movies or read comic books... yet you have this great knowledge of what they look like. Again, from my experience, male heroes in both genre are portrayed in a manner that is equally suggestive of a sexual ideal.

http://www.strengthandfitnesstips.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chris_evans_captain_america211-256x300.jpg

Male costumes are just as revealing of the anatomy beneath... all latex and leather with Speedos or cod-pieces. Undoubtedly, being a geared toward a male audience drawn largely by male artists you cannot but expect less display of the male heroes in a sexual manner. But again, we can apply the same criticism to classic art and literature. How often do writers go into great depth describing the physical attributes and beauty of the male characters? How many female nudes are there in museums in relation to male nudes?

Yes, I think you are right that the genre appeals to a certain demographic which is probably why sales are falling.

Comic book sales are falling. Hmmm... just a quick look online reveals that the sale of comic books in numbers from 2013 surpasses every year except 1997, and in terms of dollars, it surpasses every year bar none. Try again.

I think you're right about the 2D element to the superheroes. They are very simplistic characters. I would rather my kids read the Prose Edda than Thor, though a graphic novel like Maus or Persepolis are quite different propositions to their superhero cousins.

The characters are only as 2-dimensional as they are made. As with all art, the majority are mediocre at best. This does not mean that there are not brilliant exceptions nor that the characters do not have distinct potentials... among these being an accessibility... the fact that these characters are recognized by a larger audience to whom the characters of the Prose Edda or Homer or Dante... brilliant as they may be... are completely meaningless.

[JCamilo]

Lokasenna


It's certainly true that male superheroes in comic books are given unrealistic body-shapes as well - they all have impossible body-builder physiques, even those whose powers have nothing to do with strength. And whilst many of the supervillains are of the Doc 'Elton John' Octopus variety (love that comparison!), some of them are just as unrealistically beautiful as the heroes - Tom Hiddleston's Loki, for example, is pretty damn foxy...

I did not like the first movie and Hiddleston acting is one of the reasons. Emo-Loki didn’t work for me (and the whole take on the Asgardians as being aliens rather than gods, something they don’t even do in the comics was a much meh).


Interesting comment - I suppose it depends on what one means by 'mythology' (always a rather tenuous term). What do you think are the functions of mythology?

Well, most of super-heroes narratives do not work like the Mythological narratives do, no elements to explain the formation of universe or the nation (or any specific cultural trait), no attempt to give significance to anything beyond the adventures itself. Of course tenuous term and all.

Mal4mac


JCamilo also has good point about how these heroes change to fit what is most acceptable in the popular culture of the moment. But I don't think bugs bunny can be compared to aesop, it's just slapstick comedy of the most basic kind, aimed at kids, just as superman and batman are 2D heroes easily assimilated by modern kids whose only culture is "what's on TV".

It is not only how they use animal features for a comic purpose – which was probally one of the attractive of most fables when they started and still do – or how they actually use several fables stories, it is how those – we are selecting here – tales, amid all violence and mayhem, are often short, direct stories with a little moral on it. The value of friendship, the witty of the weaker, etc.

Fifth Element


Um...ever watched WWE? Take away the cape and you've pretty much described the general outfit

Well, the superheroes uniforms came from Wresting uniform… Which are staged fights, so you dress like a clown, because you are not really fighting. Of course, the superheroes are exploring sexually the women, but the same goes for the man. It is the image of physical perfection – Bruce Wayne is a stud after all and only his mysoginist behavior (derivated from Sherlock Holmes) keep him without a harem.

But that is very specific, since the 80’s Lois Lane is no more a damsel in distress, Catwoman is not just a bored bimbo, Invisible Woman became the most powerful of the fantastic four. Nothing remained the same after Frank Miller and Alan Moore – and they kicked the bucket of female exploration as well (Catwoman in Dark Knight is aged and fat, robin is a little girl, Silk Spectre was raped in Watchman, etc.) I worked with illustrators for comic books and the references for body building of heroes are more than often Hollywood for man and woman. But never Danny Devitto or even Schwazernerger. You see the body of Brad Pitt a hundred times in one month of publishing.


That's a silly extreme and you know it. Actually I wouldn't pay to watch a superhero movie because they're invariably boring and predictable. But do you really have to ask the question? Intelligence, brains, trickery. Instead the superhero genre is locked in a model which relies on misogyny and violence. So what if Hollywood spends a lot of money on it. That doesn't make it good.

This is an exaggeration. The movies are nowhere as mysoginists as bad they could be. 3 Batman movies to see one Catwoman driving a bike. Scarlett Johanson on black leather is the same sexual appeal of the thor dude. The movies are clearly aiming to a broader public, which include women.

Anyways some are very bad movies, some silly comedies, some more interesting, and at least two (the second Batman and Richard Donner Superman) are very good movies for a lot of reasons. And some like Mistery Man or Kick *** are good, but of course, they are comic take on comics. Of course, many of them, you need to like the comic books in first place.


I'm surprised you have to ask. The female characters in the superhero genre are 'idealised'?

Of course they are. Wonder Woman is idealized physically and also as behavior – she was perfect lady which skirt never lifted up despite her jumps and kicks – and loves bondage.

You may not like what they are idealized to be, but they are.


Yes, I think you are right that the genre appeals to a certain demographic which is probably why sales are falling. Manga I think is a separate issue. There is, I think, a larger range in Manga but it also relies heavily on hypersexualised female characters, and more worryingly often those characters are very childish in appearance (though not their breasts, they're always whopping).

You are over-generalizing. Comics in American are also broader (Snoopy and Calvin for example, are some of the best stuff done in north-america), but female characters are not childish (or any). Japanese manga style is less detailed and we read the absence of details as signal of youth, but it is just a form to exaggerate the emotions (since Japanese manga was less action driven, they needed it more), the age of the characters are given by their reactions, vocabulary, dressing… Of course, more easy to be noticed by Japanese readers and with all the significant cultural differences regarding sexuality in Japan.


I think you're right about the 2D element to the superheroes. They are very simplistic characters. I would rather my kids read the Prose Edda than Thor, though a graphic novel like Maus or Persepolis are quite different propositions to their superhero cousins.

You can read both and really, it 2D or 3D… a character is just a toy for a narrative and comics are close to cinema about it, they must work visually as well.

[mortalterror]

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I read comic books when I was in the eighth grade. Then I put them away for more than a decade. When I came back, they were better and there were a lot more adult titles. I also had a more discerning eye for quality by that time and resolved to read the very best of the genre, which I found had worthy titles going back to the fifties. In some cases, there were even proto-comic books which were highly artistic from well before then. People have been trying to tell stories with pictures for a long time. Sometimes they put the pictures together in sequence episodically. You have the tapestries and illuminated manuscripts of the middle ages, along with the Persian miniature book arts of the middle east. Examples include the Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp, the Beatus Facundus, the Book of Kells, the Heike Nokyo, Hours of Catherine of Cleves, and the Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. Then you have all the manga from woodblock prints that Japanese artists would produce, series of paintings by European artists such as A Rake's Progress by Hogarth, probably engraved etchings by serious artists like Rembrandt or Goya's Disasters of War series. Then you have the drawings of William Blake, and all the illustrations of Gustave Dore for Paradise Lost, Orlando Furioso, the Divine Comedy, Poe, etc. In the early 1900s you can see a revival of the woodcut tradition in America where artists like Lynd Ward produce novel length narrative series of prints without words such as God's Man.

When I became a man I put away childish things, but then I looked back on my childhood occupations and found much that would please the man the child had become. Should we really criticize men for reading comicbooks or liking video games? Is this unmanly? What is an adult? Should I be cheating on my spouse, drinking, smoking, playing pool in some dive, or working myself to death? 'Cause you know, that's the adult leisure activity our parents enjoyed. I liked reading and watching movies when I was a boy, should I put those aside too? I'm of the opinion that if you like roller coasters and ping pong you can do them when you are eighty.


One of the continuing running jokes in "Big Bang Theory" is the obsessive interest of (very) intelligent adults in comic books. This, although being quite funny, is actually a slur on physicists. I took a physics degree and no one I knew read comic books. I was probably the most nerdy, e.g., having a garish sf poster on my wall for part of my first year. This drew a rather scathing "what are you 13" comment from a chemist friend... It came down quickly after that...

What great novel has a superhero?
One, Big Bang Theory is one of the biggest pieces of garbage on television. It's no better than Duck Dynasty, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Here Comes Honey Booboo. How are you watching shows like that and getting on people's cases for reading The Walking Dead? If you said you were into Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or The Wire I could see copping a superior attitude but not for the Big Bang Theory.

Two, if you like sci fi posters put 'em up. I know lots of guys with sci fi posters or posters of their favorite bands. Don't give in so easily to peer pressure or what you figure you should be doing. What did you do, put a map up instead after you took down the poster? What would be an intellectual and age appropriate objet d'art to hang in your domicile? Did you get one of those Einsteins everyone has? Did you hang up a calendar or a clock? What's a more appropriate use of wall space?

A persons private personal space should reflect the personality of that person and what they enjoy. If you like art put up art. If you like sports put up posters of your favorite sports figures. If you like fast cars and fast women, put them up. A house should not be like a place of business. I went to a very mature friend's home a while back and he had a photo of a mountain in his living room. I mocked him mercilessly for about a half an hour. "That thing belongs in a dentist's waiting room. What'd you do, steal that from a Denny's?" It was so blase and neutral, reflecting nothing about this man who likes grungy punk rock, dirty jokes, sci fi novels, and video games. For God's sake, put up pictures of your kids or your cats. Do something provocative or expressive of who you are as a human being.

[JCamilo]

Walking dead is not that good (the comic neither). Y is much better, but those are the genres from Lovecraft, Robert E.Howard (I say some of the Roy Thomas-Windor Smith -Johs Buscema are even better than some Robert E.Howard stories). Or stuff like Frank Frazetta or Milo Manara. But the idea comic books are just for nostalgia is either not considering that nostalgia is a addult feeling or that we could say the same for reading Lewis Carroll or Stevenson Treasure Island. It is more than just remembering the childhood, it is remembering what was good enough to be meaningful.

[mal4mac]

... Big Bang Theory is one of the biggest pieces of garbage on television... How are you watching shows like that and getting on people's cases for reading The Walking Dead? If you said you were into Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or The Wire I could see copping a superior attitude but not for the Big Bang Theory.

Two, if you like sci fi posters put 'em up. I know lots of guys with sci fi posters or posters of their favorite bands. Don't give in so easily to peer pressure...


I don't give in to peer pressure, but I'm willing to reflect on what people say, and on reflection I agreed with my friend. I'm not really into Big Bang Theory, it's just something mindless to watch when I need a break from reading. But you are right, it isn't very good. I need better mindless activities...

[JanVanHogspeuw]

All of those examples of fine art show that you can express sexual fantasy in a way that goes beyond mere attempts at titillation, something I almost never see in comic books.

[Emil Miller]

All of those examples of fine art show that you can express sexual fantasy in a way that goes beyond mere attempts at titillation, something I almost never see in comic books.

I wouldn't know about that, I stopped reading comics when I grew up but there is obviously a market for those who refuse to.

[OrphanPip]

There is a fair bit of truth to what Fifth Element has said about the objectification of women in comic books, especially in anything written prior to the 90s. However, I think it is unfair to dismiss a genre like super hero narratives outright. Wonder Woman has been a lesbian and feminist icon for decades for a reason, and she was originally created to forward pacifist leadership. William Marson, the Harvard psychologist who also invented the polygraph, believed that women would make better leaders because he thought men were naturally violent, dominant, and antonistic.

As to Japanese comics, there are feminist authors who publish in less mainstream venues. Of major authors publishing in the shounen magazines, where most superheroish/youth oriented stuff is found, it's harder to find many who don't have some troubling depictions of women. Hayao Miyazaki is a self-avowed feminist who always makes his protagonists non-sexualized women and has been a strong critic of the portrayal of women, though Nausicaa is his only comic. Hiromu Arakawa fills her comics with strong female characters who are not sexual objects, but her current project is a comic about students at an agricultural school.

[stlukesguild]

All of those examples of fine art show that you can express sexual fantasy in a way that goes beyond mere attempts at titillation, something I almost never see in comic books.

A comic book illustrator such as J. Scott Campbell certainly offers little more than titillation. He reduces the characters from classic fairy tales into nothing more than pinups:

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/03/4e/a1/034ea186e70baf83eb37624afa2ff3fc.jpg

On the other hand... how does Caravaggio go beyond mere titillation here?

http://img.topofart.com/images/artists/Michelangelo_Merisi_da_Caravaggio/paintings/caravaggio020.jpg

Obviously, there is a greater sophistication in how the artist has rendered his subject matter, his use of symbolism, and his parody... even mockery of Michelangelo's Victory... but the central theme of the painting is clearly the presentation of an erotic image of a naked "pretty boy" for the consumption of a clergyman with "discerning" tastes.

How, for example, are Cranach's nudes...

http://www.francois-murez.com/compocranach_fichiers/cg1.jpg

... preening and posing before the presumably male audience... or Giorgione's sleeping "Venus"... who is not a Venus at all but simply an attractive young woman sleeping in the hills near Venice... allowing, once again, the male gaze unimpeded...

http://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/m/mmpolo/20080407/20080407233442.jpg

... or Boucher's notorious Mademoiselle O'Murphy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Fran%C3%A7ois_Boucher,_Ruhendes_M%C3%A4dchen_(1751 ,_Wallraf-Richartz_Museum)_-_02.jpg/305px-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boucher,_Ruhendes_M%C3%A4dchen_(1751 ,_Wallraf-Richartz_Museum)_-_02.jpg

... so inherently different from a beautifully photographed Playboy centerfold?

Or from a painting based upon such centerfolds, such as one of Pop Artist Tom Wesselman's Great American Nudes?

http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/ulrich/wesselmansm.jpg

[JCamilo]

Campbell is really just a pin-up guy, but so is Dave Stevens, which Rockeeter is filled with homages to the aesthetics of Pin-ups and Betty Page. It is not just cheap appeal, altougth in my opinion appeal to sex is hardly cheap :D




As to Japanese comics, there are feminist authors who publish in less mainstream venues. Of major authors publishing in the shounen magazines, where most superheroish/youth oriented stuff is found, it's harder to find many who don't have some troubling depictions of women. Hayao Miyazaki is a self-avowed feminist who always makes his protagonists non-sexualized women and has been a strong critic of the portrayal of women, though Nausicaa is his only comic. Hiromu Arakawa fills her comics with strong female characters who are not sexual objects, but her current project is a comic about students at an agricultural school.

They are mainstream also, like Rumiko Takahashi, of Ranma 1/2 fame. If I am not mistaken she is the richest manga-writer of Japan. The thing is they have entire genres dedicated to feminine themes.

[OrphanPip]

They are mainstream also, like Rumiko Takahashi, of Ranma 1/2 fame. If I am not mistaken she is the richest manga-writer of Japan. The thing is they have entire genres dedicated to feminine themes.

I was trying to think of authors publishing in genres somewhat analogous to superhero stuff. It's true Inuyasha wasn't overly sexualized, though Takahashi's work in Urusei Yatsura or Ranma 1/2 is another matter. The girl's comics often don't overly sexualize the female characters, but they come with another host of questionable representations of women. The worst offenders of course are romance mangas, which are massively popular in magazines published for teen boys.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, but Takahashi is often a mockery of traditional vallues, included the sexual vallues or the marriage. But then, inside each genre, they exagerate the sexuality of characters, be the gay or the male or female, like in Clamp's stories. But we have Kenshin manga, heavily influenced by american comics, where female characters - while of course not as powerfull as Kenshin or his maiin antagonists - are not just steryotipes as the damsel in distress or bimbos, even when there is sexual jokes.

We should notice that even in european comics not related to super-heroes, female protagonists are rare, for example, Tintin or Asterix have basically no relevant female character, but in the erotic comics they domain the scene with Valentine or Barbarella.

[OrphanPip]

Yeah, but Takahashi is often a mockery of traditional vallues, included the sexual vallues or the marriage. But then, inside each genre, they exagerate the sexuality of characters, be the gay or the male or female, like in Clamp's stories. But we have Kenshin manga, heavily influenced by american comics, where female characters - while of course not as powerfull as Kenshin or his maiin antagonists - are not just steryotipes as the damsel in distress or bimbos, even when there is sexual jokes.

We should notice that even in european comics not related to super-heroes, female protagonists are rare, for example, Tintin or Asterix have basically no relevant female character, but in the erotic comics they domain the scene with Valentine or Barbarella.

What you say about Kenshin is true, and it's increasingly true of those shonen action stories that involve groups of friends fighting some evil. Kenshin and YuYu Hakusho seemed to have started the trend of always including female side characters that are more than just the love interest (perhaps Bulma in Dragon Ball deserves some credit too), and it was partly a marketing strategy pioneered by Weekly Shonen Jump when they realized they could market their stuff to both boys and girls. Like Sailor Moon had unexpected crossover appeal to male audiences in the West because action oriented stories for girls are unusual. Japan has always had more participation of women in the comics industry, which I think is partly due to the greater genre diversity and the publishing practices. Because most comics are anthologized in weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly magazines there is more opportunity for new artists. Marvel and DC don't take big risks on new people and they rely heavily on their long established characters, and it makes it hard for women to get into a marketplace that is dominated by a boys club. While in Japan Osamu Tezuka pioneered comics for girls back in the 60s and 70s, he was followed by a wave of female authors and artists in the 80s and 90s. Rumiko Takahashi was also a big trend breaker because she was a women who wrote comics marketed to men, which opened doors for people like Arakwa (who still uses a male pen-name though). I'd definitely agree that despite there being a massive amount of patronizing, misogynistic, and fetishistic portrayals of women in Japanese media, we have to give a nod to the fact that at least women have a major presence as characters, buyers and creators. The problems are more pronounced in anime where the market is more dominated by male consumers, though we get the Disney phenomenon with Ghibli where female protagonists don't seem to turn off male audiences. Miyazaki even has the courage to sometimes tell stories about girls who aren't trying to find a guy.

[mortalterror]

JCamilo knows his comics.

I'd also like to add that many women enjoy being sexualized and use it in society as a form of power. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, I'd love to be treated as a sex object.

I'm also trying to think of how women idealize themselves when they get the chance and all I can come up with is the princess motif.

Wait a second, those Romance novels are written by women and they are full of sex and Fabio beefcake. And those Sooki Stackhouse vampire mystery novels, she's banging everyone and all the handsome vampires and werewolfs are just her sexual play things fighting for or over her existing only to do her whims. Come to think of it, isn't that how the Twilight books went too?

What you say about Kenshin is true, and it's increasingly true of those shonen action stories that involve groups of friends fighting some evil. Kenshin and YuYu Hakusho seemed to have started the trend of always including female side characters that are more than just the love interest (perhaps Bulma in Dragon Ball deserves some credit too), and it was partly a marketing strategy pioneered by Weekly Shonen Jump when they realized they could market their stuff to both boys and girls. Like Sailor Moon had unexpected crossover appeal to male audiences in the West because action oriented stories for girls are unusual. Japan has always had more participation of women in the comics industry, which I think is partly due to the greater genre diversity and the publishing practices. Because most comics are anthologized in weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly magazines there is more opportunity for new artists. Marvel and DC don't take big risks on new people and they rely heavily on their long established characters, and it makes it hard for women to get into a marketplace that is dominated by a boys club. While in Japan Osamu Tezuka pioneered comics for girls back in the 60s and 70s, he was followed by a wave of female authors and artists in the 80s and 90s. Rumiko Takahashi was also a big trend breaker because she was a women who wrote comics marketed to men, which opened doors for people like Arakwa (who still uses a male pen-name though). I'd definitely agree that despite there being a massive amount of patronizing, misogynistic, and fetishistic portrayals of women in Japanese media, we have to give a nod to the fact that at least women have a major presence as characters, buyers and creators. The problems are more pronounced in anime where the market is more dominated by male consumers, though we get the Disney phenomenon with Ghibli where female protagonists don't seem to turn off male audiences. Miyazaki even has the courage to sometimes tell stories about girls who aren't trying to find a guy.

Yes, the number of strong female characters in manga is staggering. There was Masamune Shirow who had female protagonists in Ghost in the Shell, Appleseed, Dominion Tank Police. There's Project Ako, Armitage III, the Faye character from Cowboy Bebop, the female team from Bubblegum Crisis, Dirty Pair, Gunsmith Cats, Read or Die, the assassins in Noir, and Kite, etc. Oh, and I nearly forgot about Hellsing with it's female head of the department and it's female cop sidekick.

[mal4mac]

Wait a second, those Romance novels are written by women and they are full of sex and Fabio beefcake.


But they are trash!

I'm currently reading Pat Barker's "Regeneration trilogy" and the hero (Billy Prior) has a slight physique and suffers from asthma. He also has shell shock and other mental problems. Beefcake he is not! The previous woman author I read was Sue Towsend. In "The Queen and I" the main male character was Prince Charles (nuff said!), and her most famous character is Adrian Mole. So it's easy to find male protagonists who aren't beefcake when it comes to serious women authors.




And those Sooki Stackhouse vampire mystery novels, she's banging everyone and all the handsome vampires and werewolfs are just her sexual play things fighting for or over her existing only to do her whims. Come to think of it, isn't that how the Twilight books went too?


Again, this isn't serious literature.

[JanVanHogspeuw]

I forgot to add that all those fine art examples are figures and not characters. Even if they are portrayals of mythological characters, or of real life people in the artist's life, they are still just snapshot portrayals, who can only express themselves in the pose they are frozen in. Comic book characters are carried along a narrative, that are supposed to show us, in some form or another, their thoughts and feelings as the plot unfolds. If Caravaggio had created a comic book that was supposed to tell a proper story and all of his young male characters conveniently lost most of their clothes at inopportune times, then, whilst admiring his craft, he'd still be open to criticisms I'd level at modern comic book creators. Conversely, if it was just a case of it being basically a pin-up catalogue with about as much pretence at a plot as a porno, then I'd have less problem with it. It's when they try to have their cake and eat it, that the real problem comes in.


I'd also like to add that many women enjoy being sexualized and use it in society as a form of power.

And many, many more don't, and they especially don't like that boys and young men are being constantly fed such an impression.


Hell, I'd love to be treated as a sex object.

Again, most people that actually do get treated as a sex object don't.


Look, I'm not saying that it doesn't have its place, just that, does it have to be so prominent? When any 11 year old boy has got an endless supply of titillation, from arty erotic photography to hardcore pornography, catering to every fetish under the sun, just a Google search away, can't we say "hey, Mr Comic Book Guy, we get it, that girl you've drawn has got a helluva cleavage on her, now can she quit bending over, and instead get on with all that story stuff of becoming an actual character, please."

[mona amon]

JCamilo knows his comics.

I'd also like to add that many women enjoy being sexualized and use it in society as a form of power. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, I'd love to be treated as a sex object.

I'm also trying to think of how women idealize themselves when they get the chance and all I can come up with is the princess motif.

Wait a second, those Romance novels are written by women and they are full of sex and Fabio beefcake. And those Sooki Stackhouse vampire mystery novels, she's banging everyone and all the handsome vampires and werewolfs are just her sexual play things fighting for or over her existing only to do her whims. Come to think of it, isn't that how the Twilight books went too?

You've got a point. I think it will be a sad day for women if men stop regarding us as sexy objects. :D There is misogyny, and there is objectification of women to suit male fantasies, but I think they are two different things. The former is a psychiatric disorder. The latter is perfectly natural.

[Ecurb]

I stopped watching Superhero movies after “The Dark Knight”. That film was widely praised by both critics and the movie-going public. Roger Ebert (who – I’ll grant – liked every movie) said,” “Batman” isn’t a comic book anymore. Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy. It creates characters we come to care about. That’s because of the performances, because of the direction, because of the writing, and because of the superlative technical quality of the entire production. This film, and to a lesser degree “Iron Man,” redefine the possibilities of the “comic-book movie.”

Huh?! Why make a comic book movie that isn’t a comic book anymore? I remember sitting in the theater and hoping – praying to God – that when Heath Ledger’s Joker was captured for the first time, the movie would end and I could leave. No such luck! Another interminable hour of special effects and humorless dredge remained.

The problem with comic book movies resembles the problem with comic books: the fight scenes are boring. Pro wrestling suffers from the same problem: the soap opera plots and the character-defining rants are fun – but the actual fights are deadly dull. (Wrestlers are comic book characters – down to their names: “Hulk”, “The Giant”, “The Rock”, etc. Some of them even wear masks and have secret identities.)

Superhero comics are like many serialized soap operas: the reader must keep up or lose interest. Nobody cares about the fights between Spidey and The Rhino or Doc Ock – but regular readers care whether Peter Parker and Mary Jane are getting along. Once we stop reading regularly, we no longer care. One can’t care about Rex Morgan or Mary Worth reading once a week, either.

When one reads the comics it is possible to spend about one second on each frame that delineates the fight (“POW!”). In the movies, one has no choice but to sit through a half hour of it. Other blockbusters (like Lord of the Rings or Avatar) suffer from the same problem. They could be decent movies if they’d just cut the fights to about 1/4th of their current length.

[JCamilo]

Be it comics, movies, books, complaining about something shown in the story (fights) and not how it is showed is just a rambling. Replace "fights" with dancing and you may trash An American In Paris in the same grounds one will trash Glee.

[Volya]

A comic by say Alan Moore or Frank Miller is a hell of a lot more entertaining than some boring classics by Dickens or whatever.

[Ecurb]

Be it comics, movies, books, complaining about something shown in the story (fights) and not how it is showed is just a rambling. Replace "fights" with dancing and you may trash An American In Paris in the same grounds one will trash Glee.

Ask and you shall receive. The problem with the fights in Avatar, LOTR and every Superhero movie is that they are overly repetitive and do not serve to add to the emotional impact of the movies (after the first 5 or 10 minutes). That's how they differ from the long ballet scene at the end of American in Paris. The ballet scene enhances the mood of the movie, as well as providing both enjoyable music and good dancing for the delectation of the audience. By setting the ballets in scenes resembling impressionist paintings, the film also provides insights into the hero (the hero is a painter), and the frenetic music creates a feeling of desperation in the audience that mirrors that of the hero. I don't remember the superhero fight movies fight scenes well enough to explain precisely WHY they fail, but in the case of LOTR or Avatar (which I remember better) they fail because the simply repeat themselves over and over again, without adding anything to the movie that could not have been created in a 5 minute scene instead of a 25 minute one. One quality of good art is that each aspect of it enhances the overall impact of the work.

I'll grant that the same objection could be made to both comic books and comic book movies. Every comic (back when I used to read them, at least) has a long superhero vs. super villian fight scene. But one distinction between reading and watching movies is that the reader can skim the boring bits. In the movie theater, the viewer is forced to sit through endless, repeated action. I mean: how many times can one watch Hulk Hogan perform that idiotic leg drop? Hogan was the greatest pro wrestler of the last 40 years -- but his actual wrestling was a bore. Wrestling fans loved to see him putting his hand to his ear to implore the hulkimaniacs to cheer, or rip off his tee shirt -- but (I argue) nobody could possibly get much of a thrill from the leg drop.

If the fights in superhero movies were choreographed to be beautiful or emotionally evocative - like some of the fights in the semi-superhero movie "Kill Bill"-- I would have no objection to them. But they aren't. I'll grant that since they are so boring, I can't remember them well enough to analyze exactly why they fail -- I remember the ballet in American in Paris or the fight in the snow in Kill Bill better BECAUSE they are better scenes. However, surely it is a reasonable complaint to suggest that such scenes are unmemorable. A critic who is more expert about the movies (or has seen them more recently) than I would probably be able to explain what is lacking better than I can.

[JanVanHogspeuw]

I'm now trying to think of a superhero movie with well done action scenes - all I can think of is Kick-*** (a film I don't even really like).

[The Comedian]

A lot of the superhero movies currently in vogue feature characters who were developed in the 30s-50s, so if any allegiance to the character's original integrity is made, then they will most certainly have element of the culture that originally created them. Plus, the characters in the current movies: Captain America, Batman, Superman, Iron Man, . . . .these characters were originally written for young or adolescent boys -- so fights, machismo, de-emphasized female presence, simplistic conflict resolution, etc. . . these are all traits of mainstream literature written for that audience of that time.

Of course, as the superhero audience matured, then you see the greater presence of sexuality etc. . .but this occurs within the general narrative framework of the original serials.

If you want to see more complicated and inclusive superheros, then look to those titles and characters published more recently.

Personally, I enjoy the superhero movies -- they're not the most sophisticated cinema, but they're fun.

C

[JCamilo]

Ask and you shall receive. The problem with the fights in Avatar, LOTR and every Superhero movie is that they are overly repetitive and do not serve to add to the emotional impact of the movies (after the first 5 or 10 minutes). That's how they differ from the long ballet scene at the end of American in Paris. The ballet scene enhances the mood of the movie, as well as providing both enjoyable music and good dancing for the delectation of the audience.

The problem with the dances in Glee, Footlose and every Teenager musical is that they are overly repetitive and do not serve to add to the emotional impact of the movies (after the first 5 or 10 minutes).

As I said, you replace your ranting against fights for dancing and we have the same meaning: you do not like fights, nothing to do with the fights being, you know, elements that build the genre heroes since Homer, who did wasted his time describing fights. Or knights duels. Or samurai duels. Or Jedi duels. Or farowest duels. It is a formula, yes, but accusing a work because it is using a formula is usually only a way to say you do not like the given formula, not that the formula was well employed or not.

There is an ocean of differences between Adam West's fights, Ang Lee's Hulk fights, Tim Burton Batman Fights or the new batman fights. Even if we think - Superman by Richard Donner is a movie wihtout a single fight - Superman does not hit anyone there, in the entire movie, even when he was attacked since nothing could hurt him. Someone looking the fights on Will Eisner Spirit, Frank Miller Dark Knight or Daredevil stories, or Bill Sienkiewicz's Electra and resume them to something similar to the monthly series when the artist had a few weeks to produce all comic is like saying every time someone kiss or have sex in a movie, it sucks because of the cheap porn movies.

And really? Kill Bill is meamorable? It is a comedy about cliches, an obvious copy of Hong Kong movies. If you were mentioning House of Flying Dagger or Hero, I could think of it... but Kill Bill... (Not to mention, if there is anything that cannot be considered bad about LoTR are the fights... but that is another story).

[Ecurb]

What do you have against "Footloose"? I didn't see the remake, but the original was OK, in a campy way.

I was specific in what I have against the fight scenes in LOTR, Avatar, and Super Hero movies, although I didn't differentiate between directors and don't have the memory (or expertise) to do so: They're too long.

The same complaint could be reasonably made (as just one example) against The Song of Roland, in which saracen upon saracen is cleaved from head to crotch, the horse's back being broken by the force of Durandal's mighty blow. One is OK, two stretching it, three: BORING. The Iliad is rather better done, I think.

I'm glad you like the fight scenes in LOTR. You were, it seems, able to enjoy the movies better than I was. Good for you! I thought the wizard fight between Gandalf and Saruman in which their staffs resembled Star Wars blasters was ridiculous -- but, for the film-makers' sake -- I'm glad you enjoyed it. Of course Frodo rolling his eyes up in his head as if the One Ring were a powerful hallucinagenic drug wasn't my cup of tea, either. Nonetheless, Tolkien appears to have agreed with me. The fight with the troll in Fellowship takes up perhaps a paragraph in the book (1/1000th of the text), while lasting 15 minutes in the movie (1/12th).

No doubt fights are a key element in super hero movies. Perhaps, if they tended to be more entertaining (or shorter), I wouldn't have stopped attending the films. In "Kill Bill" the fight in the Japanese dojo is funny, camp, and, in the ending in the snowy garden, beautiful. Most of the fights (which, I grant, I barely remember) from the superhero movies are neither funny nor beautiful.

I agree with whoever compared superhero movies to pro wrestling. Both can be fun in a camp, overblown way. When they start taking themselves seriously (as in Dark Knight) they head downhill. Like "Kill Bill", superhero stories are playful, camp mythologies, rather than actual mythologies. Hulk Hogan was hilarious when he urged the Hulkimaniacs to take their (Hulk Hogan brand) vitamins -- but nobody took him seriously as either an athlete or an actor. Batman should be handled in the same way (Superman was handled in that way in the early movies, which were reasonably good).

[Lokasenna]

Plenty of actual mythologies are both playful and camp, to be fair...

I agree, though - the emphasis on fight scenes in the movie versions of popular books/comic books is rather pronounced. I suspect movie executives often think that viewers will get bored of the story if it isn't punctuated by Hollywood pyrotechnics. LOTR is particularly guilty of this, and the Hobbit films even more so - for Tolkien the idea of deadly combat was clearly important, but I very much doubt he imagined the super-hero level of athleticism and martial prowess some of the movie characters engage in.

...though I must admit to having enjoyed the fight between Gandalf and Saruman, if only because Peter Jackson clearly resisted the urge to cram it full of flashy colours and explosions. I mean, imagine if Michael Bay had directed LOTR..?

[mal4mac]

I'm with Mark Lawson: "JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English." For me, the films did nothing but reflect that "labour", with the usual Hollywood "moves" just adding to the tedium.

[Aylinn]

I cannot say I am tired of superheroes stories, since I have never liked them in the first place. When there is a new movie of Spidermen or Batman, etc. I just ignore it. Somehow American comicbooks and animation, apart from Disney, have never appealed to me. When it comes to comics and animation, I prefer to stick to manga and anime.

I agree that fight scenes tend to be too long. I remember that there was a long battle scene in two of the Lord of the Rings movies that made me fell asleep. That’s why I have never watched these movies to the end.

[JCamilo]

Plenty of actual mythologies are both playful and camp, to be fair...

I agree, though - the emphasis on fight scenes in the movie versions of popular books/comic books is rather pronounced. I suspect movie executives often think that viewers will get bored of the story if it isn't punctuated by Hollywood pyrotechnics. LOTR is particularly guilty of this, and the Hobbit films even more so - for Tolkien the idea of deadly combat was clearly important, but I very much doubt he imagined the super-hero level of athleticism and martial prowess some of the movie characters engage in.

...though I must admit to having enjoyed the fight between Gandalf and Saruman, if only because Peter Jackson clearly resisted the urge to cram it full of flashy colours and explosions. I mean, imagine if Michael Bay had directed LOTR..?

The movie Battle of Helm Deep is well done. I am not a fan of LoTR but the problem is not the fighting scenes. Just like the problem of recent Star Wars are not the fights, not when you see the awful acting and dialogues between Anakin and Padme. And lets points, hollywood just found that Cecil B.De Mille was great and just didnt had all the money. Ben Ur is filled with battle scenes, so is Gladiator. The quality of both movies is not affected by those fights at all.

As I pointed, Superman by Richard Donner does not have a single fight. A superheroe movie. And even the Nolan Batman' movies, how many fights and how many are really unecessary. Not to mention the movie is hardly sustained by the fights as if it is a Van Damme movie, it is sustained by the dialogue and acting. If we get a comic book, like Batman: The dark knight, with a lot of fighting, you can hardly say the entire point was those fights or how boring or bad developed they are.

It is really like getting the cheapest use of this element and dismissing all movies/comics, even those who are the best, with same elements as if they are all the same. I mean, the fights are long and boring?Kill Bill's fight scene againt Lucy Liu takes dozens of minutes. And actually, Hero or House of Flying Dagger fight scenes take a lot of time but are nothing as "boring". It is nothing new, 3 Mouskeeters if filled with fights every single chapter.

[mortalterror]

Plenty of actual mythologies are both playful and camp, to be fair...

I agree, though - the emphasis on fight scenes in the movie versions of popular books/comic books is rather pronounced. I suspect movie executives often think that viewers will get bored of the story if it isn't punctuated by Hollywood pyrotechnics. LOTR is particularly guilty of this, and the Hobbit films even more so - for Tolkien the idea of deadly combat was clearly important, but I very much doubt he imagined the super-hero level of athleticism and martial prowess some of the movie characters engage in.

...though I must admit to having enjoyed the fight between Gandalf and Saruman, if only because Peter Jackson clearly resisted the urge to cram it full of flashy colours and explosions. I mean, imagine if Michael Bay had directed LOTR..?
All the lousy over the top orc battles of The Hobbit part 2 really took me out of the movie. The action in the LOTR trilogy gets better every time I see it. Those are some well made movies, but this last one... Legolas (who I hear wasn't in the book) surfed on an orc over dry ground. He used enemy characters bodies like a skateboard. At the end of their battles it was Legalas and the elf chick 30, Orcs 0 and that's just ridiculous. How are you supposed to take an antagonist seriously when the protagonists engage in such one sided slaughters? This last movie reminded me of those armies of disposable ninjas in old 80s movies. Also, while I liked Gandalf's battle with Saruman, it puzzled me when Saruman didn't kill Gandalf. You just do that and without Gandalf the bad guys win. It was equally frustrating when I saw the same thing go down in the last movie with Gandalf fighting Sauron. It was a deja vu type feeling, haven't we seen this before, and does nobody kill their prisoners? The way that the first Hobbit movie ended with Gandalf and the dwarves getting saved by the eagles had me going, "Really, again?" How many deus ex machina eagle saves are we going to allow in these stories?

I want to be clear here. I am not objecting to the action, I am objecting to the lack of variety in the action. It's important to switch things up so that the audience doesn't feel bored. A director like John Woo might show fifty gun battles in a movie, but they'll be shot fifty different ways.


I'm with Mark Lawson: "JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English." For me, the films did nothing but reflect that "labour", with the usual Hollywood "moves" just adding to the tedium.
The movies were an improvement on the books because you no longer had to wade through Tolkien's crummy prose and the work of decades of artists in perfecting a visual style to tell the tale definitely added value to the narrative which wasn't in the original books.

[Calidore]

Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips wrote a column on this subject today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-talking-pictures-superhero-20140508,0,7578135.column