What Is A Superhero?

[Maxperson]

Its possible, though I really think folks should give up trying to push punisher over the line. I think its fine to keep him as the Marvel black sheep anti-hero. Ghost Rider seems to kind of ride that line too, but I have no idea what they have done with GR since 80-90's

 

[Maxperson]

So, if we are thinking just about powers for the moment, all the MCU GotG have abilities far beyond those of normal humans, and normal members of galactic civilization (or the GotC couldn't be beating up foot soldiers and guards with such impunity).

WotC muscle memory slip you up there?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is always hard to nail down genres to "the one single thing". They are usually a whole collction of things, that assembled together in some form, makes the genre, but not one single thing defines it all, because that single thing might also exist in other genres. And, genres aren't tight boxes. They overlap a lot.

Most superhero stories kinda play in a contemporary setting and involve individuals with unusual abilities that fight against criminal or evil entities (groups, people, individuals) of all kinds of sorts, some of their adversaries also utilizing (or being) individuals with unusual abilities. These abilities are often beyond human capabilities, often unique in general or among their peers, sometimes supernatural, alien or relying on speculative/fictional technologies. Their abilities might require training, and often it's unique to them and their powers. The superheroes might act entirely outside (or outside raditional) governmental/public oversight/the law, for examples as vigilantes, mercenaries, spies or private detectives. The individuals might have secret identies to protect friends and family or help them evade the law and their adversaries. They often have distinct looks, like costumes, clothing, hair styles or physical features.

 

[Ryujin]

It is always hard to nail down genres to "the one single thing". They are usually a whole collction of things, that assembled together in some form, makes the genre, but not one single thing defines it all, because that single thing might also exist in other genres. And, genres aren't tight boxes. They overlap a lot.

Most superhero stories kinda play in a contemporary setting and involve individuals with unusual abilities that fight against criminal or evil entities (groups, people, individuals) of all kinds of sorts, some of their adversaries also utilizing (or being) individuals with unusual abilities. These abilities are often beyond human capabilities, sometimes supernatural, alien or relying on speculative/fictional technologies. The superheroes might act entirely outside (or outside raditional) governmental/public oversight/the law, for examples as vigilantes, mercenaries, spies or private detectives. The individuals might have secret identies to protect friends and family or help them evade the law and their adversaries. They often have distinct looks, like costumes or styles that allow distinguishing them from others.

In other words, "Context is key."

 

[Mannahnin]

I suppose that does highlight one thing specific to this genre that hasn't been brought up: Action and physical combat. None of the examples and counter-examples touted about in these threads that I can recall have lacked those aspects. Indeed, none of the people discussed as being superheroes are lacking in some form of physical prowess, whether innate or enhanced.

Is beating people up innate to the genre? Are there any clear examples of superheroic people who don't do so?

In Watchmen, they go to pains to show how violence is just meaningless when considering Dr. Manhattan. He starts off as a "superhero" but quickly discovers he is far above those sorts of fisticuffs.

Yes, at least not as a major shtick.

I don’t recall Braniac 5 (Legion of Super Heroes) doing much melee. Other legionnaires that don’t do much in HTH are Light Lass & Princess Projectra.

Oracle is another alter ego of Batgirl, which originated when she became wheelchair bound- she fought crime by gathering info.

In most incarnations of the character, Dove is pretty pacifistic, but can fight- mostly defensively- if forced.

The Phantom Stranger doesn’t throw down often.

As I recall, it took a long time before Kitty Pryde engaged in fisticuffs with noticeable frequency.

I know Wonder Man had a pacifist phase (after I left comics) where he’d essentially act as an invulnerable punching bag, disarming opponents while preaching nonviolence instead of fighting them. Don’t know how long that lasted.

The ones who don't engage in fisticuffs usually still use their powers to fight crime or directly neutralize foes. Whether that be Kitty Pryde phasing through someone to stun them, or Dr. Manhattan being able to blip an enemy's weapon or their whole physical being out of existence. Or make himself a hundred feet tall and stomp Vietnamese tanks like an angry giant/god.

Even the ones with the most attenuated relationship with violence (say Professor X telepathically stunning or disabling people, or Destiny from The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants using her precog powers to aid the team) are still using their abilities to help defeat their foes.

I’d say Sherlock Holmes and John McClane have more in common with pulp heroes than true superheroes.

(I also acknowledge that some superheroes are very close to the genre’s pulp roots.)

The mentions of pulp heroes once again bring Watchman up, because Moore includes a bunch of older pre-Super costumed vigilantes among his roster of characters. For example the original Nite Owl, who had no powers but hand to hand combat and acrobatics skills, and is similar to The Phantom. The second Nite Owl is the Batman/Blue Beetle analogue.

There's definitely a blurry line between the pulp adventurer heroes and powered superheroes, since the original wave of costumed crime fighters were an intermediary form, basically. Ja?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

This is what I was thinking about the general vs the specific, from the Suicide Squad Wiki page.

View attachment 402214

It does specify that they are villains and anti-heros, but they all fall under superhero.

Yes, the movie is categorized under the superhero genre. The characters themselves are not superheroes.
And I'm pretty sure the thread's name isn't what is a Superhero movie. It's what is a Superhero.

 

[aco175]

Yes, the movie is categorized under the superhero genre. The characters themselves are not superheroes.
And I'm pretty sure the thread's name isn't what is a Superhero movie. It's what is a Superhero.

This is one of those things where both things are true. If you went to the movie and I asked what superheroes were in it, I'm not expecting a dialogue on the difference with a hero/villain/ally.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

This is one of those things where both things are true. If you went to the movie and I asked what superheroes were in it, I'm not expecting a dialogue on the difference with a hero/villain/ally.

You wouldn't expect i,t but I'd tell you that there are no superheroes in THE SUICIDE SQUAD. In the same way if you'd asked me what Vampires are in THE HOWLING or AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. NONE. They're monster/horror movies (But not all monster movies are vampire movies).

The Punisher is not a superhero. He's not even a hero. He's a psychopath who targets criminals. Just because he exists in the MCU doesn't make him a superhero any more than it makes the Kingpin a superhero. Hell, they both began as Spider-Man villains.

By most of the definitions I've seen in this thread, people are ignoring both the "super" and the " hero" parts of the word to pigeonhole what and whoever they like in the genre or definition. The thing is, I can't tell people what their definitions are. I can just disagree with it and move on.

Case in point: Robocop (to me) is not a superhero. Nor is it a superhero movie. IMHO, to define it as such is lazy. He's LITERALLY programmed to serve the public trust. He has no agency for most of the film after he becomes Robocop. The point of the film isn't altruism or sacrifice or heroism, its vengeance and Alex Murphy regaining his humanity. But because he's a cyborg with above-human abilities people automatically call him a superhero.

Alex Murphy is heroic. And he pays for that heroism in the worst way possible. But Robocop isnt. He's a mechanism for vengeance. RoboCop, quite honestly, has more in common with a western than a superhero movie (HANG 'EM HIGH specifically).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In a loosely defined term for superhero, I would say yes. A bit like John McClane from Die Hard, who can certainly take an unimaginable beating and keep coming. Not like Superman who has powers kids pretend to have, but can never attain, like being able to fly.

I would say say that Die Hard* is superhero, whist Sherlock Holmes is not (usually). The main reason being the type of stories they feature in. Generally, superhero stories are resolved through action and fighting, and tend to be simple morality tales. Holmes is a little more complicated, because the original author himself switched genres, the most famous novel being in the Gothic genre. Not to mention things like the RDJ Holmes, where he is used as a superhero. It's fairly common in detective fiction for detectives to have apparently superhuman cleverness, but no one would confuse The Murder at the Vicarage for a superhero story.


*Apparently indestructible, wears a costume (a grimy singlet) when fighting crime.

 

[aco175]

You wouldn't expect i,t but I'd tell you that there are no superheroes in THE SUICIDE SQUAD. In the same way if you'd asked me what Vampires are in THE HOWLING or AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. NONE. They're monster/horror movies (But not all monster movies are vampire movies).

I would ask what monsters are in those movies, since they are monster movies. Same as if I asked about what superheroes are in the superhero movie. The word is synonymous with the thing. I feel that the word has been used long enough that it means both things now, a bit like Velcro is synonymous for any old hook and pile tape. We can disagree though.