The death of the superhero genre?

[kguillou]

Hey guys, I found this interesting article over at comicbookresources and this guy is talking about how even though it may seem very much alive, the superhero genre is dying a slow painful death. He goes on to talk about how people arent interested in new superheroes anymore and would much rather stick to their Spidermans, Batmans and Supermans. He also talks about how new variations on existing superheroes always end up being in vain and never stick.
He rambles a little bit, but he makes some good points. What do you guys think? Is the genre dead or has it simply evolved with time?

Article:
http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23675

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'm sure that most people are going to disagree with this article, but honestly I think there is something to it. I mean comics don't sell like they use to, the big two dominate the market with events and silly gimmicks, there's no real progression to be had, in fact it seems as regression is applauded and welcomed with open arms for fans, and as the article mentions it seems pretty much impossible for new heroes to make it.

Not to mention that everything tries to be dark and grim nowadays. There's no more fun to be had in the genre anymore it seems. Well, that's not 100% true, it's there, but it tends to be thrown aside for the newest issue of X-Force or some such thing. I don't know, I hate preaching doom and gloom, but I don't see any signs of the superhero being in good shape. I mean general interest is up outside the market, but the genre itself seems pretty stagnant, in my opinion.

 

[kguillou]

I agree, i mean when was the last time a new superhero came and broke into the mainstream? Spawn maybe? But look at him now. Its impossible to create a new superhero thats entirely original because it feels like everythings been done already.

Also I feel like progression is definitely dead. I dont want this to become another One More Day debate but let's face it, that storyline was a huge wake up call to comic fans saying that no character will ever be able to progress past a certain point. Its a damn shame really. But thats just me.

 

[greenrage36]

Well..there was a lot of truth in the article I'll give it that. I dunno...is all the extra marketing and hype (no pun intended, ha!), around the movies/toys/blah,blah...a dying gasp? I think the genre will still be able to substain itself for quite a while, with no slow-down.

I think the actual marketing is more towards the already-established characters...y'know, instead of a NEW character (which would take waaaay more effort), let's try to flesh out a tired-and-true one (still some effort but not as much). While the fleshing out doesn't always work, I think if they can keep re-inventing the wheel, (and not just do it for the hell of it, but within a creative and interesting storyline/arc), do they really NEED to keep making new ones?

Yeah..I dunno...just ramblin' I guess...

 

[random_havoc]

Well, allow me to disagree.

1) Sales being down in comics doesn't mean the death of the superhero genre, but simply a lull in comics which may or may not change in the future.

2) For the whole genre to be dead it would mean that the popularity of superheroes as a whole would have to be going down. Nowadays superhero shows and movies are more popular than they have ever been before.

3) As for new characters not catching: First, to say that that necessarily means a decline in the genre is a large jump. I'd argue it is simply a reflection on the fact that people like to stick with what they've liked in the past. Second, there have been characters that have risen in popularity. spawn has already been mentioned. The fact that he's not popular now isn't a result of superhero decline, but with a poor choice in what to do with the character.
Just because they don't overthrow the giants doesn't mean they aren't still very significant.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I think you guys are missing a core piece of what the article is saying:

Even comics fans aren't mad for superheroes. Even superhero fans aren't mad for superheroes. Not really. If they were, the genre wouldn't be in its current dire straights. No, superheroes aren't an endangered species, at least not anytime soon. There are plenty around. Millions, it feels like. The superhero isn't headed for extinction anytime soon.
He's just landlocked. Nowhere to go and no way to get there.

It's not all about sales and popularity, but where the genre can potential go with the way things are. You can call it 'sticking to you know', but really that's just short sticking your head in the past without wanting something else. It's always kind of been the great problem in entertainment, in my opinion, and comics are no exception

 

[Sloth7d]

That is an interesting point. Take a look at video games for example. Imagine if no gamer ever wanted to give a new game franchise a chance and only stuck with the big icons like Mario, Zelda, and Donkey Kong. Sure, they're great, but then we have a big library of iconic game characters beyond that that came after them. The comic genre does too, but we fans really seem to sleep on some of the potential greats like Blue Beetle, Arana, and Static. So in the end, their sales tank and they fade back into some team roster or worse.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I might try writing a lengthier rebuttal later, but for now I just want to expand on one of random havoc's points. Just because there is a lack of superheroes doesn't necessarily mean the death of the superhero genre. Just because people don't want to try that new Funky**** Cola that's just been released, and would rather stick with Coca Cola or Pepsi because they're established and well-liked, doesn't mean the cola industry is going down the crapper.

The strength of the superhero genre lies in the enduring appeal of these characters. The writer's comment that superheroes have not evolved in any way since the 1940s is very reductive, simplistic, and frankly inaccurate. These characters have grown and changed to accomodate the tastes of new generations, while still remaining true to what was originally appealing about them in the first place. I'd say that's quite an achievement.

As for "there's not been any successful new characters in the superhero genre in 25 years", the writer kinda rigs his answer here by then following this with "oh, and it doesn't count as a success unless their comics have had a huge mainstream breakthrough", even though he himself goes on to say that even the established superheroes don't have comics wildly popular with mainstream audiences. If you judge success as "amongst comic fans", there have been plenty of successful superhero launches in recent years: Invincible springs to mind immediately - it's been around for about 50 issues now, with sales steadily growing in that time. Deadpool was created in the 90s, and now supports 3 ongoing titles. Kick-Ass is getting his own movie next year. And the high-selling DC event Blackest Night is largely populated by either reinvented obscurities or all-new characters amongst the various Corps.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I might try writing a lengthier rebuttal later, but for now I just want to expand on one of random havoc's points. Just because there is a lack of superheroes doesn't necessarily mean the death of the superhero genre. Just because people don't want to try that new Funky**** Cola that's just been released, and would rather stick with Coca Cola or Pepsi because they're established and well-liked, doesn't mean the cola industry is going down the crapper.

Again, it's not just about 'going down the crapper' as much as just becoming stagnant. Just like I said before, 'sticking with what's established' is just a nice way of saying stuck in one gear. I'm sorry, but despite what you or anyone else says, just sticking with one thing forever is not a good thing for the advancement of any genre.

The strength of the superhero genre lies in the enduring appeal of these characters. The writer's comment that superheroes have not evolved in any way since the 1940s is very reductive, simplistic, and frankly inaccurate. These characters have grown and changed to accommodate the tastes of new generations, while still remaining true to what was originally appealing about them in the first place. I'd say that's quite an achievement.

I don't think he's necessarily saying that, but this tidbit is I think the heart of what he's saying:

That's pretty much where superheroes have generally stayed: in squaresville. Even where characters diverge from the path, where themes and storylines bend away from mere considerations not even of good and evil but of good and bad. Even cosmic in most superhero stories is mostly cosmetic, "pure evil" being personified (as in FINAL CRISIS) as a guy who wants everyone to wear funny hats. And every time superhero comics veer toward something more complex, someone, usually a host of someones, appears to force things back onto the straight and narrow.

You would have to be, quite frankly, blind not to see this happen. Morrison's New X-Men, for example. The point he's making with that I think is that it seems like whenever there is a book that elevates characters and stories in comic books it seems that it is going to be undone and everything will be brought back to how it was before and always has been. Not that there's always something wrong with 'kicking it old school', but when all you ever have is 'kicking it old school' I believe that's a problem

As for "there's not been any successful new characters in the superhero genre in 25 years", the writer kinda rigs his answer here by then following this with "oh, and it doesn't count as a success unless their comics have had a huge mainstream breakthrough", even though he himself goes on to say that even the established superheroes don't have comics wildly popular with mainstream audiences. If you judge success as "amongst comic fans", there have been plenty of successful superhero launches in recent years: Invincible springs to mind immediately - it's been around for about 50 issues now, with sales steadily growing in that time. Deadpool was created in the 90s, and now supports 3 ongoing titles. Kick-Ass is getting his own movie next year. And the high-selling DC event Blackest Night is largely populated by either reinvented obscurities or all-new characters amongst the various Corps.

Again, it's not just about sells. I think you guys are looking too much at that aspect of 'success'. The guy is also looking at the use of the genre from a more artistic viewpoint.

And, honestly, if you want to measure success in the part I bolded, you're basically reducing it to a shrinking group of somewhat dogmatic fans who seem to mostly go to whatever DC and Marvel tell them is important, whoever's name is on the cover or a popular character stars in the title. Not much of a success story, in my opinion. The only one I could potentially see of all that you named is Invincible, but only more of a success in the 'among fans' sense. Though success among a dwindling niche market is technically success, though, so it's something

 

[kguillou]

I think the comic book companies (marvel, dc, image etc) have come to point where they feel like everything's already been done before. These comic book properties have been around since the early 1900's and tons and tons of writers have put these characters through every imaginable situation. So they believe that they have no choice but to recycle the same old stories but with a new "twist". Instead of moving forward and creating new situations, they ressurect old situations but put a new hat on it.

And here's proof that they've ran out of ideas: has anybody else noticed that ever since Joe Quesada became editor in chief, they've pretty much broken every taboo of their characters? Spiderman's unmasked, Daredevil's unmasked, Wolverine gained his memories back, Bucky returned, popular heroes are dying right and left to garner attention. I'm pretty sure at one time the editorial wouldn't have allowed things like that to happen. Although admittedly, some of these broken taboos have proven great ( DD's unmasking, and Bucky's return). But isn't something like unmasking Spiderman one of those taboos that your just not supposed to touch? It shows that they were so desperate for a great spiderman story that they decided to just go along with it and see what happens and well....we saw what happened. lol.

Anyway my point is, it does feel like writers are running in place these days and are too scared to just step forward. How many times haveyou read in solicits " An important character from ______'s past is coming back to change their life forever!!!". Jeez, is it really that hard to just move forward?

 

[Max J Power]

The article makes some good points, but I've read too many really good superhero runs from this decade to think of the genre as "dead."

 

[Tron Bonne]

The article makes some good points, but I've read too many really good superhero runs from this decade to think of the genre as "dead."

Which is why I think dead isn't really an appropriate word. I mean he says dead, but not necessarily dead in the sense of gone and buried, but more artistically dead in the sense of being stagnant on new creations and ideas. You can still have good things, but when you're using the same characters forever, to the point of retreading/expanding on/cribbing off of stories that happened no more than a decade ago or just using shock gimmicks, then artistically there is some stunted growth artistically speaking. I know most people don't really care about that aspect and only want to see stuff they like, in the context they want, with their favorite characters. I guess it'll never be a problem to them, but for others who like things to change and evolve, want to see fresh faces, etc. it does look kind of 'dead' in that sense

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I agree, i mean when was the last time a new superhero came and broke into the mainstream? Spawn maybe? But look at him now. Its impossible to create a new superhero thats entirely original because it feels like everythings been done already.

Also I feel like progression is definitely dead. I dont want this to become another One More Day debate but let's face it, that storyline was a huge wake up call to comic fans saying that no character will ever be able to progress past a certain point. Its a damn shame really. But thats just me.

Look at my avvy. There is your answer.

All this talk of no fun in comics anymore, you're reading the wrong books. If all you read is Dark Reign and Blackest Night, yea it's gonna be doom and gloom.

I've just read Amazing Spider-Man 611 and it's one of the funniest comic books I've read in a long ****ing time. The comic book industry needs more from Joe Kelly. Everything the guy does is gold.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, I should have said 'much'. I mean there are occasions of it, but it's positively, overwhelming dark and gritty in the industry of a whole. And outside Deadpool's appearance (which I personally don't find as funny as most anyway), most books that tend to be on the funner and light side struggle with sales (IH, Blue Beetle are prime examples).

Though, yes, we do need more from Joe Kelly. Much more. MUCH MORE!

 

[random_havoc]

The ridiculousness of the argument can be seen by comparing it to movies and saying that movies are dying (artistically of course, because billions of dollars of profit off something doesn't prove it's not dying of course).

All the same empty arguments can be used:
-They just keep repeating the same thing
-The newer, smaller ones don't usually jump mediums, so they aren't really successful
-The plots are all just re-used with new hats
-The older, classic ones are more successful than the newer ones (ie, how much money the Star Wars prequels made, etc)

Sure, the movie medium is bigger money and numbers, but besides scale it's exactly the same.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Has someone said something otherwise to that statement? Movies have been criticized like that since probably the 1990s, and it's still a valid viewpoint. There is a big difference, in my opinion, between financially dead and artistically stagnant (which I think is what this article is more about over financial), so stop with the passive aggressive ********, you know the difference and you know what I meant, I was very clear with that. Unfortunately, the former is apparently all that matters and the latter tends to be disregarded because people only seem to measure things with box office receipts and sales. Though, of course, even comics are beginning to lose on the ground of sales, too

 

[kguillou]

As i've said before creators are definitely starting to get lazier the ideas and concepts these days. To them an innovative concept is either killing a character off or retconning something from a character's past.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well I think writers are afraid to do outrageous new things these days. Why? Because the fanboys ***** and whine about it when they do. You say writers don't try different things because they are lazy and unimaginative? Maybe so. But it is also because so many fans are set in their ways, constantly *****ing and moaning over changes and new things. The writers can't do no right. Keep it the same as it always has? They are lazy and unimaginative. Change things up a bit? They are doing it for shock value or whatever.

Best example? War Machine.

People *****ing about him being turned into a cyborg. I think it's pretty interesting. I love the way when he is damaged he can assimilate another piece of machinery, like a tank or a fighter jet. But oh no it's too different and outrageous! Wa wa waaa!

The door swings both ways.

And then you have the events. I think the last few Marvel events have been great. Mainly in concept, sometimes lacking in execution. But Civil War and Secret Invasion and Dark Reign have all changed **** up, done some extreme things. And a lot of fans ***** and moan about it. I think it showed balls to do the Civil War thing. And Dark Reign has been a breathe of fresh air, for me. Even though I do get a bit sick and tired of the doom and gloom of it all.

The point I'm trying to make is this. You get articles like these slamming the unoriginality of the super hero genre. Then when they do try something original and perhaps extreme, people ***** and moan about it. The writers and editors can't win whatever they do.

This is the way of the fanboy though, it's to be expected. A fanboy wouldn't be a fan boy if he wasn't moaning about something.

 

[kguillou]

I agree and disagree. I DO agree that fanboys are a whiny bunch that are very picky about what happens to their superheroes and whatnot. Yes a lot of times when writers try to do something new, the fans ***** and moan about it. HOWEVER, i also feel like there have been a lot of times when writers have introduced new ideas that fans have loved too.

When JMS made Peter Parker a teacher, i seem to remember the fans loving that devleopment.
When Bendis unmasked DD.
Joss Whedon revamping the X-men.
Warren Ellis revamping Ironman.

I think as long as it seems like a natural progression fans generally applaud a good change. Its just that lately there have been tons and tons of drastic changes happening everywhere in both Marvel and DC that its a bit of a sensory overload and it feels like change for the sake of change. When JMS made Peter a teacher, it felt like the logical next step for the character. When Warren Ellis gave Ironman the Extremis powers, it felt like a natural progression. When Grant Morrison established Cyclops and Emma's relationship, again, it felt like it was natural.

With War Machine, part of the reason people *****ed was because it came out of freaking nowhere! Just all of a sudden he was a cyborg, its a cheap shock tactic.

So I feel like, yes, while fans do whine alot, half the time its warranted. Good writers should be able to make progression feel natural and not all of a sudden.

 

[random_havoc]

Ridiculous.

If, as is being claimed here, one can say that the comic medium, AND the movie medium are both dead (based on some pretty subjective opinions in my opinion), then the exact same thing could be said of TV and fiction books as well.

Gee, guess virtually all fiction is dead guys. Funny how more people haven't realized this. Good call.

*Note: I know text doesn't bring tone across, so let me point out I'm not trying to be insulting, I just find it silly so I'm trying to respond in an amusing way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I can see random havoc's poiint, in comparing the attacks on superhero comics to the attacks on the film industry. Like you'll get the people who say Hollywood hasn't made a single good film since the 1970s, but when I look at the last attempt I made at a top 100, I find a whole lot of films from this decade, two of which (The Dark Knight, There Will Be Blood - three if you count Magnolia which was made in 1999 but released in 2000) broke my all-time top ten. We might never get another Hitchcock, but we do have David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan and the Coen Brothers.

In comics and films alike, people who are negative on the industry are of course going to make statements about it based on their own negative perception. In movies, all I hear is how there hasn't been a horror that wasn't a remake in years, to the point where I had almost accepted it as true, until I remembered The Descent, Rec, Trick R' Treat, 28 Days Later, The Mist, Drag Me To Hell, etc. And in comics, Alan Moore has been saying the superhero genre is two years away from extinction for, oh, about two decades now, at least.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I suggest the superhero genre doubters read something besides Marvel or DC if they are so sick of them.

Like, oh I dunno, Mark Waid's Irredeemable or Millar's Kick Ass.

 

[CaptainCanada]

And here's proof that they've ran out of ideas: has anybody else noticed that ever since Joe Quesada became editor in chief, they've pretty much broken every taboo of their characters? Spiderman's unmasked, Daredevil's unmasked, Wolverine gained his memories back, Bucky returned, popular heroes are dying right and left to garner attention. I'm pretty sure at one time the editorial wouldn't have allowed things like that to happen. Although admittedly, some of these broken taboos have proven great ( DD's unmasking, and Bucky's return). But isn't something like unmasking Spiderman one of those taboos that your just not supposed to touch? It shows that they were so desperate for a great spiderman story that they decided to just go along with it and see what happens and well....we saw what happened. lol.

Anyway my point is, it does feel like writers are running in place these days and are too scared to just step forward. How many times haveyou read in solicits " An important character from ______'s past is coming back to change their life forever!!!". Jeez, is it really that hard to just move forward?

Those two paragraphs contradict each other: they can't be both breaking longstanding writing restrictions and not going anywhere.

I find arguments like this kind of silly. The genre is supposedly "landlocked" now: was the genre in the 40s or the 60s ever purposefully "going" anywhere? Storytelling rhythms change with the times, and comics continue to do that; if they continue to be organized largely around the stand-bys, that's by audience interest.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I can see random havoc's poiint, in comparing the attacks on superhero comics to the attacks on the film industry. Like you'll get the people who say Hollywood hasn't made a single good film since the 1970s, but when I look at the last attempt I made at a top 100, I find a whole lot of films from this decade, two of which (The Dark Knight, There Will Be Blood - three if you count Magnolia which was made in 1999 but released in 2000) broke my all-time top ten. We might never get another Hitchcock, but we do have David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan and the Coen Brothers.

Who said anything about good?

Anyway, that analogy is heavily flawed in one key concept. We've looking at the superhero genre specifically, not the entire whole of comics, where as you are trying to apply the same concept to movies as a whole. If you narrow it down to the action genre, we quickly see where the analogy starts to really set in.

As I noted, for people who only want to see thier favorite characters, in only their context, without introducing anything new or putting new ideas to these characters, you won't see a problem, because you've pretty much pre-programmed yourself into what you want.

However, for those who like to see progression, new characters, pushing forwards, we do see a problem.

In comics and films alike, people who are negative on the industry are of course going to make statements about it based on their own negative perception. In movies, all I hear is how there hasn't been a horror that wasn't a remake in years, to the point where I had almost accepted it as true, until I remembered The Descent, Rec, Trick R' Treat, 28 Days Later, The Mist, Drag Me To Hell, etc. And in comics, Alan Moore has been saying the superhero genre is two years away from extinction for, oh, about two decades now, at least.

Then it's a good thing that no one is talking about extinction. The very article that started this thread even says as much.

Ridiculous.

If, as is being claimed here, one can say that the comic medium, AND the movie medium are both dead (based on some pretty subjective opinions in my opinion), then the exact same thing could be said of TV and fiction books as well.


Gee, guess virtually all fiction is dead guys. Funny how more people haven't realized this. Good call.

Again, you're taking the use of the word dead too literally. Again, Stagnant would be a more proper way of looking at that

If it's so ridiculous why is that there's been so few of original IPs that succeed (or even created for that matter). How many new ongoings go past two years? Why is it we are regressing status quo's instead of progressing. Instead of creating new characters we are bringing back old? Not that there's neccessarily anything wrong with those things per say, but when that's all you have, it's being stuck in one gear

*Note: I know text doesn't bring tone across, so let me point out I'm not trying to be insulting, I just find it silly so I'm trying to respond in an amusing way.

Well, if amusing is the same as *****ey to you, I guess you nailed it.

I suggest the superhero genre doubters read something besides Marvel or DC if they are so sick of them.

Like, oh I dunno, Mark Waid's Irredeemable or Millar's Kick Ass.

It's not just a Marvel/DC thing, it's a market thing. And I read plenty outside those two

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Read Irredeemable! Trust me. Tis great.