Super hero tone and changing times

[Mallus]

As not to derail the other thread, how do you feel about different tones for the various heroes?

I like Miller's Batman, Dini's Batman, and Lorenzo Semple Jr.,'s Batman. 'Nuff said.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I enjoy different takes on the same characters. I'm not a purist in any away, and I believe that any take on a fictional character is valid, whether that's Batman or Merlin. Some I'll enjoy more than others, but I don't feel like any of them are wrong to exist (though continuity in the same iteration of the fictional universe is important to me).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I like Miller's Batman, Dini's Batman, and Lorenzo Semple Jr.,'s Batman. 'Nuff said.

I enjoy different takes on superheroes as well. This has a long and storied history, whether it's the "Bizarro" world versions, or different writers and artists taking the hero in a new direction, or even "one-shots" (the Killing Joke, for example) examining as aspect of the character. Heck, if you have HBO Max, there is a whole library of the DC Universe Animated Films with different versions of the main characters (I just watched Red Son, which is the "What if Super Man crashed in the Soviet Union?").

Here's the thing, though.

...for there to be different takes; for writers to be able to play against type, that type has to be established. There is so much territory to mine when you are deliberately subverting expectations (to use one example); however, if the only thing that is ever done is playing against type, eventually, there is no longer that "type" to play against.

 

[Morrus]

...for there to be different takes; for writers to be able to play against type, that type has to be established. There is so much territory to mine when you are deliberately subverting expectations (to use one example); however, if the only thing that is ever done is playing against type, eventually, there is no longer that "type" to play against.

But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too.

I didn't say it wasn't okay.

I was just pointing out that the power of telling a story that relies on the knowledge of a "type," is negated when that type no longer exists.

You can't subvert something if the subversion is the genre itself.

 

[Umbran]

But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too.

Definitive version and definitive type are not the same. After thousands of years, Zeus is still a philanderer. That's type, not version.

 

[trappedslider]

(I just watched Red Son, which is the "What if Super Man crashed in the Soviet Union?").

Does it have the sexy hat?View attachment 132835

 

[Ryujin]

I enjoy different takes on superheroes as well. This has a long and storied history, whether it's the "Bizarro" world versions, or different writers and artists taking the hero in a new direction, or even "one-shots" (the Killing Joke, for example) examining as aspect of the character. Heck, if you have HBO Max, there is a whole library of the DC Universe Animated Films with different versions of the main characters (I just watched Red Son, which is the "What if Super Man crashed in the Soviet Union?").

Here's the thing, though.

...for there to be different takes; for writers to be able to play against type, that type has to be established. There is so much territory to mine when you are deliberately subverting expectations (to use one example); however, if the only thing that is ever done is playing against type, eventually, there is no longer that "type" to play against.

There no longer being a "type to play against" is a very good point. Sure, you can do alternates, spins, one-offs, etc. but when do they come to outnumber the source material? Sometimes, if you have a statement to make, then creating something of your own is the better way to go. You can see parallels to various properties in "The Boys" and "Watchmen", without directly calling out their source. The story is no less compelling. And if you really want to parody something, this is the route that I suggest. It worked for "Mystery Men" and "The Specials."

 

[Morrus]

Definitive version and definitive type are not the same. After thousands of years, Zeus is still a philanderer. That's type, not version.

Sure, and Batman's still a masked vigilante. We're just quibbling over words.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, and Batman's still a masked vigilante. We're just quibbling over words.

If it is about actually understanding each other, Morrus, it isn't "just quibbling".