Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Zelena]

Making anti-heroes and "flawed" heroes more feels like an excuse as to why writers can't write nice, healthy relationships.

“Flawed heroes” are not the same as “anti-heroes”. Heroes are rarely perfect (Superman?), they have flaws. “Anti-heroes”, by definition, are not heroes. It annoys me that the writers try to make us think that anti-heroes are just heroes with flaws.

[PCN24454]

“Flawed heroes” are not the same as “anti-heroes”. Heroes are rarely perfect (Superman?), they have flaws. “Anti-heroes”, by definition, are not heroes. It annoys me that the writers try to make us think that anti-heroes are just heroes with flaws.

An "anti-hero" is just a hero that doesn't fit the standards of being a hero either be it their methods or their personality.

A lot of old characters that would be considered heroes by old standards would be considered anti-heroes by current ones.

[CSTowle]

I think Marvel's '60s heroes show you can have flawed heroes with healthy relationships, they're not mutually exclusive. The Fantasic Four (who started it all) are a family who went through the tragedy that gave them superpowers. Granted, it was a bit shaky there at first, but that made them grow stronger over time. Same with Spider-Man and Aunt May, and I'm sure many other examples I'm too lazy to think of. Guess it also depends on your definition of flawed heroes and "nice, healthy relationships". My main lack of interest in Silver Age DC heroes was their flawlessness which generally made them boring to me, but outside of the Flash I can't say any of them had what I'd consider a healthy relationship (even Clark and Lois, lying to her for as long as he did). Maybe Clark and his parents? Certainly no relationship Batman ever had (though clearly as flawed a hero as they come, so perhaps supporting that argument).

As to anti-hero, another hard one to define. You have Punisher types, doing what they think is good but clearly doing wrong to achieve it (murder/extrajudicial execution). Then you have people who might do "good" on occasion but are usually unconcerned/above/beside it all (Swamp Thing, Constantine, Adam Warlock). While I was not a fan of the early '90s anti-hero push, I do think characters like that can be interesting. Especially when contrasting with more traditional "heroes".

[TheRay]

At least Richard and Al deserve to be recognized as Temptations.

[babyblob]

I would say Silver Age Batman had healthy relationships. he still treated Robin as an equal and mentored him, was best friends with Superman, I am reading some of the World's Finest from1956. As goofy as they are it was pretty fun and he and Sups had a great Bromance. Batman respected Gordon and listened to him to the point he let Gordon order him to take a vacation, he respected other heroes including The Metal men and plastic Man, he loves Alfred.

Batman was very stable and dare I say content for the most part in The Silver Age. Yes it is because the Silver Age was full of goofiness but these stories are a bit more fun to read then the current Batman who claims family is important then treats them all like ****. or makes plans to take down his friends behind their back.

[Jim Kelly]

Up until BATMAN 198 [G-43] (February-March 1968), a giant which reprinted his origin story from 1948, and then BATMAN 200 (March 1968) which had a new retelling, Bruce's tragic origin story wasn't referenced that often. You could read the comics and never know how or why he became Batman. In the first episode of the 1966 T.V. show, Adam West tosses off his origin in a single line and then it's never mentioned again. But once the 200th issue put it out there, it seems to me that the frequency of rehashing the origin increased in the comics. So you couldn't go through a year without being reminded that Bruce saw his parents killed in front of him and became the Batman as a result. I think it was that constant repetition of his tragic loss that pushed the character down a darker path. But it kind of made him look patheric, if he was flashing back to his origin story every time someone sneezed. The old Batman was a stoic--he accepted the lot that life had handed him and then he got with things, not looking back all the time and moaning but going forward.

[Alan2099]

Up until BATMAN 198 [G-43] (February-March 1968), a giant which reprinted his origin story from 1948, and then BATMAN 200 (March 1968) which had a new retelling, Bruce's tragic origin story wasn't referenced that often. You could read the comics and never know how or why he became Batman. In the first episode of the 1966 T.V. show, Adam West tosses off his origin in a single line and then it's never mentioned again. But once the 200th issue put it out there, it seems to me that the frequency of rehashing the origin increased in the comics. So you couldn't go through a year without being reminded that Bruce saw his parents killed in front of him and became the Batman as a result. I think it was that constant repetition of his tragic loss that pushed the character down a darker path. But it kind of made him look patheric, if he was flashing back to his origin story every time someone sneezed. The old Batman was a stoic--he accepted the lot that life had handed him and then he got with things, not looking back all the time and moaning but going forward.

The old Batman was more interested in making the world a better place. The new Batman is more interested in hurting criminals.

I do really miss when Batman was more Caped Crusader and less Dark Knight. I blame Frank Miller.

... wait a minute, this is supposed to be the topic for Controversial Opinions for everything other than DC....


umm... Captain Lou Albano's gruff voice was a much better fit for Super Mario than the squeaky broken English with an Italian accent we have these days.

Street Fighter II was actually a good movie. Not a "so bad it's good" but entertaining in all the ways it set out to be.

Far too many movies use Zombies. Having the exact same script and simply changing the monster to something else would make a lot of them tons better. When you get bit by a sasquatch, you turn into a sasquatch, when you get bi by a gill-man, etc etc At the very least, it would be something different.

[Zelena]

An "anti-hero" is just a hero that doesn't fit the standards of being a hero either be it their methods or their personality.

A lot of old characters that would be considered heroes by old standards would be considered anti-heroes by current ones.

The definition of an hero varies. But an anti-hero is someone who doesn’t want to be an hero, who refuses this definition. You cannot be a hero by accident, if you do something good, something courageous for someone else, you stop being an anti-hero, like Han Solo did.

[PCN24454]

The old Batman was more interested in making the world a better place. The new Batman is more interested in hurting criminals.

I do really miss when Batman was more Caped Crusader and less Dark Knight. I blame Frank Miller.

... wait a minute, this is supposed to be the topic for Controversial Opinions for everything other than DC....

I feel like superhero becomes "beat people up" rather than "helping people" more and more in the minds of the public each day. It's not completely undeserved, but it's still depressing to see.

[TheRay]

Peter Jackson is criminally underrated as a director.

[Alan2099]

I feel like superhero becomes "beat people up" rather than "helping people" more and more in the minds of the public each day. It's not completely undeserved, but it's still depressing to see.

Part of that comes from writing for the trades. When your story has to be from four to six issues, there just isn't the room or pacing to stop and do a single issue where the heroes just spend time helping people out. You barely even get heroes stopping minor crimes anymore. Nobody has time for a bank robbery anymore. They're too worried about how Lord Cosmic-Evil is going to destroy the world or rewrite reality.

[Zelena]

I feel like superhero becomes "beat people up" rather than "helping people" more and more in the minds of the public each day. It's not completely undeserved, but it's still depressing to see.

I still do have the impression that, more and more, in comics, there’s a complaisance in staging violence… It is not that showing violence didn’t exist before, but what distinguished heroes and villains is that the former showed some restraint and tried to find another way. Such discussions, dilemmas… are rarer and rarer…

[PCN24454]

Part of that comes from writing for the trades. When your story has to be from four to six issues, there just isn't the room or pacing to stop and do a single issue where the heroes just spend time helping people out. You barely even get heroes stopping minor crimes anymore. Nobody has time for a bank robbery anymore. They're too worried about how Lord Cosmic-Evil is going to destroy the world or rewrite reality.

I still do have the impression that, more and more, in comics, there’s a complaisance in staging violence… It is not that showing violence didn’t exist before, but what distinguished heroes and villains is that the former showed some restraint and tried to find another way. Such discussions, dilemmas… are rarer and rarer…

Yeah. The soldier aspect that a lot of superheroes had seems to have been emphasized recently

They're literally beings fighting in a war.

[seismic-2]

Sam Elliott is under-rated as an actor because his performances are so low-key. The same was true of Robert Mitchum.

[PCN24454]

Sam Elliott is under-rated as an actor because his performances are so low-key. The same was true of Robert Mitchum.

I always loved his portrayal of Ross in Hulk.