Should superheroes be called out on their privilege?

[Jim Kelly]

Yeah but my point is we're always being told how relatable the Marvel super-heroes are and I never found that to be the case. I can maybe identify with Peter before he gets bit by the spider, but after when he's dating hot chicks drawn by John Romita--that's not a character I can identify with. And the other heroes are even less grounded. So I don't see how Marvel gets away with that spiel.

[babyblob]

Yeah but my point is we're always being told how relatable the Marvel super-heroes are and I never found that to be the case. I can maybe identify with Peter before he gets bit by the spider, but after when he's dating hot chicks drawn by John Romita--that's not a character I can identify with. And the other heroes are even less grounded. So I don't see how Marvel gets away with that spiel.

I get that. I dont understand it either. With heroes like Tony Stark, Thor, Captain America etc.. All of these fantastic amazing God characters.

[Zelena]

I dont want to read a story about a 41 year old nut job who lives at home and takes care of his disabled father.

And yet… Peter’s story is that heroism and generosity aren’t about the package… We don’t like Peter because he’s a nerd and he is bullied at school but because he’s much more than that.

He’s clever, funny, kind and courageous.

[Agent Z]

Every character is unrelatable to someone else. You not being able to relate to a character is not an indication of whether or not they are interesting.

[useridgoeshere]

I doubt the relatability of fictional characters is so literal, “That’s exactly me on the page or screen!”, for most people.

It feels to me like critics miss the point of these stories and want to change them into something entirely different. They don’t understand or care about the internal logic of superhero comics/films. I agree with babyblob’s posts. Bruce Wayne battling the bureaucracy of city hall to establish a drug treatment center against NIMBY aldermen and neighbors makes me yawn (unless those neighbors are an evil cult and he solves the problem by dressing up and kicking them until he gets his way).

[nx01a]

Bruce and Tony and BP and every other billionaire/trillionaire could easily end serious world issues if they actually spent the money.
Reed and Doc Magnus and Ray Palmer and Hank Pym and Hank McCoy could end world hunger, energy shortages, paralysis and most diseases. The Avengers and FF can't even speak out on behalf of mutants rights issues despite having friends and family and members who are mutants. Superhero universes should be utopian except for when supervillains try to destroy everything... and even then a world under Doom or Luthor would probably also have the possibility of being utopian if they used their resources to make their citizens safe and happy, too.
Only Alan Moore's Miracleman showed superheroes truly changing the world, eliminating disease and war and famine and even literal death, as well as creating true social improvement.

[QuinnFillory]

Here is an article about Batman: https://comicyears.com/comics/dc-com...suSzSlXvtfaoWE

[Jim Kelly]

With Bruce, this seems a bit chicken and the egg. Originally, Bruce was just an idle playboy, from a well-off family. He apparently didn't have to work which gave him the time to hang around Gordon and find out about sensational police investigations. When Bill Finger had to write an origin story, the parents were upper class types that were killed in a robbery. Bruce had to have enough money to finance his training to become the Batman. However, there was no suggestion that the Waynes were super-rich. And if Thomas had started out as a doctor, it seems like they weren't all that wealthy when Bruce was a boy. They were just better off than the working class people that Thomas served.

It's only in the last forty years (of Batman's eighty plus year history), where the Wayne wealth and the position of the Waynes has grown in size. So now the Waynes are super-rich and part of some Illuminati. But that seems to be put there by writers that want to comment on privilege and use the Waynes as their proxy. So does the need to discuss Bruce's privilege arise from the stories or do the stories arise from the need to discuss Bruce's privilege?

[CaptCleghorn]

With Bruce, this seems a bit chicken and the egg. Originally, Bruce was just an idle playboy, from a well-off family. He apparently didn't have to work which gave him the time to hang around Gordon and find out about sensational police investigations. When Bill Finger had to write an origin story, the parents were upper class types that were killed in a robbery. Bruce had to have enough money to finance his training to become the Batman. However, there was no suggestion that the Waynes were super-rich. And if Thomas had started out as a doctor, it seems like they weren't all that wealthy when Bruce was a boy. They were just better off than the working class people that Thomas served.

It's only in the last forty years (of Batman's eighty plus year history), where the Wayne wealth and the position of the Waynes has grown in size. So now the Waynes are super-rich and part of some Illuminati. But that seems to be put there by writers that want to comment on privilege and use the Waynes as their proxy. So does the need to discuss Bruce's privilege arise from the stories or do the stories arise from the need to discuss Bruce's privilege?

The Adam West series had a reasonably wealthy Bruce, almost always referred to as "millionaire Bruce Wayne". At the very least, I would push that 40 number to 55. Also, in the West series, Bruce was often doing something for charity. A Batplane appeared as early as Batman 1. Having and being able to repair your own aircraft seems to be a sign a person is more than well off.

[Adam Allen]

I don't think depiction of Bruce as super wealthy comes (at least initially) from some desire in the writers to comment on wealth and privilege. I think it's to explain all the gadgets/tech/equipment that Batman has, that a standard martial arts/street-level hero doesn't have. You know, he has peak human physical ability and fighting skill, and he's a genius, but when you want to portray him as not dead weight alongside Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc, then out come Bat-jets and cars and all kinds of fancy tech that makes street-level thugs no challenge for Batman, and puts him up there with people who have actual super powers.

I mean, I guess there is some inherent comment, that the writers and audience all seem to collectively agree on this concept, that enough wealth could essentially make someone superhuman. But yeah, if any such implied comment about privilege=power is there, I don't think it's in any critical or reflective sense. Batman is just portrayed as rich enough that we can all accept that he's able to buy all the things he needs that collectively make him kind of superhuman.

[Jim Kelly]

Yeah, it's like life on alien planets or ghosts or enough radiation will mutate you into a super-human being. Do writers really believe in all this stuff or is that just the device that allows the story to happen? I believe it's the device that allows the story to happen. But then you have writers that come along and deconstruct the device itself--as if it's really a serious thing in the fantasy when it was never intended to be that. And you get these navel-gazing comics and movies, where the hero is now a corrupt fascist just because the writer is taking the fantasy out of context. Whose character is at question--the fictional construct or the writer?

[Zelena]

Yeah, it's like life on alien planets or ghosts or enough radiation will mutate you into a super-human being. Do writers really believe in all this stuff or is that just the device that allows the story to happen? I believe it's the device that allows the story to happen. But then you have writers that come along and deconstruct the device itself--as if it's really a serious thing in the fantasy when it was never intended to be that. And you get these navel-gazing comics and movies, where the hero is now a corrupt fascist just because the writer is taking the fantasy out of context. Whose character is at question--the fictional construct or the writer?

Is this writers or readers who take the fantasy out of context? When you enjoy a comic, you get along with the story and the intentions of the author. You don’t (usually) care about inconsistencies or topics that aren’t explored.

Batman is fighting against evil men and not social injustice? So what? A comic universe is not our universe…