Are hero/hero fights and feuds too overused in comics? And why?

[ed2962]

I always thought it was a sure thing that they outright hated each other at the time because of Jean partly, especially on Logan's end, and I thought it started up again during Whedons run, and then Schism,

Well, the thing is early on they did hate each other, but Claremont had had the parties involved move past it. It's modern times that's brought it back. And now Hickman is trying to move past it again.

[Jim Kelly]

While classic National Comics/D.C. used the battle between the heroes as a bait--usually on the covers--most of the time it turned out to be a fake-out (unless it was an imaginary story). Readers knew that the heroes wouldn't normally fight each other--so one was always looking for the real reason, such as mind control, a hoax, a trap set for a villain, a dream.

Whereas, Timely/Atlas/Marvel always had their heroes fighting each other for real. Sometimes it might be a misunderstanding, but the heroes would go at each other hammer and tongs and often never settle their differences.

Later, in an attempt to appeal to Marvel readers, D.C. would import this animosity for their characters. The most obvious case being that of Superman and Batman who had always been good friends, then one day they decided they didn't like each other and they could barely stand to be in the same comic book as one another.

I guess this tells which kind of a person you are as a reader--depending what you prefer. Some readers really want to see two heroes fighting and will buy into any excuse for that to happen. This was never what I wanted. I always wanted to see two characters I liked meet each other and become friends. It did my heart good to see them sharing a common bond. They were heroes--and all heroes should be friends.

[Powerboy]

This has been the Marvel Way since the FF went to track down The Hulk back when their title was just barely in double digits.

Attachment 100570

A frequent way to promote a new character was to have them duke it out with an established character.

Attachment 100571

Even before Marvel, DC was using that trope.

Attachment 100572

What I will agree with you on is that back in the day they didn't make entire multi-month events out of it. Writers have also put a lot of effort into forcing fans to pick a side and demonizing the other.

Of course, that sounds a lot like most American disagreements these days.

That is very true. Superhero vs. Superhero fights are a grand tradition. I think what changed things, at least for me, was DKR. It was not a misunderstanding that was just one scene and then on with things. It was a true hatred based on valid reasons, not a misunderstanding.

When one speaks of superhero fights, I don't think about the FF versus the Hulk in those early days or similar fights. I think more about the fights that people either loved or hated on the level that they feel it either made a character or broke a character if only because the characters are still carrying the aftermath of that story decades later in terms of how people perceive the characters because the characters are still often being written to be in tune with the popularity of a certain long ago story.

Mind you, it can be reversed. For instance, in DKR, Batman is in the right. In Batman vs. Superman, Superman is in the right and Batman has gone over the edge on assumption and innuendo.

But early Hulk vs. FF or Thor vs. Iron-Man in the Avengers movie. Those I consider just fun fights with no solid conclusion or at least a fight where the person who would eventually lose makes a good showing of it.

Your other point what put nicely in one sentence while I spent paragraphs trying to say it. Those older fights were not trying to demonize one of the characters into "the bad guy" and the whole story didn't revolve around such things all the time.

[Papa Moai]

I always thought it was a sure thing that they outright hated each other at the time because of Jean partly, especially on Logan's end, and I thought it started up again during Whedons run, and then Schism,

Logan's feelings for Jean probably fueled his side of that early tension between him and Scott. However, as I recall Scott was unaware that Logan had a crush on Jean. Scott simply disliked and distrusted Logan because he saw him as an obnoxious, trigger-happy, Leeroy Jenkins type.

I'm not sure when exactly Logan's crush on Jean became an open secret, but seems to have been well after the two men had buried the hatchet. And Scott was totally understanding of both Logan's feelings and of the fact that Jean wasn't entirely immune to Logan's charm either. That's why I prefer it when those guys get along and absolutely hate it when writers or fans try to portray Scott as the "jealous boyfriend".

[TheRay]

I like when the Avengers and XMen have a contentious relationship even at the end of their battles.

[Mister Mets]

This is something readers find compelling.

It also makes sense with a greater awareness of morally ambiguous situations.

[kjn]

I think there are several aspects of this.

One is that if one returns to old myths and stories, they are filled with people who meet for the first time and bump the stuffing out of each other, only to become best friends. Robin Hood and Little John is the first that comes to my mind, but he is not alone. It's still used in modern media, see eg how Mad Max and Furiosa start their relation with a drawn-out fight. If the heroes are to respect skill at arms, then a fight is a quick way to establish respect between them.

DKR is a great example, because it is an excellent piece where the ideological differences between the characters and the ensuing fight drives the entire story. But most writers looked at that (or for that matter Watchmen) and only noted the superficial elements of the story, not the underlying themes that made the story work. Or they were crap at writing actual character drama or ideological differences.

So perhaps the hero-versus-hero fight isn't overused as much as misused or used poorly.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I think one of the problems is that writers have backed off from really developing their villains, and editors don't keep their characterization consistent.

Take Kang, for instance.

Under Kurt Busiek, he was Alexander the Great who used time 'as his canvas, not weapon'.

Under Waid, he tried to kill the Avengers when they were babies. Same with Slott.

Outside of Doom, no villain that can carry a crossover has the needed gravitas.

So heroes are the only 'villains' left with any depth, and thus they get plugged in.