Whereas non-superhero settings allow for as widely diverse situations, moments, problematics...

>whereas non-superhero settings allow for as widely diverse situations, moments, problematics, interelations betveen characters and/or groups, all sorts of powers/magic/technology and even superhuman characters if need be, as can only be imagined given the vide variety of possibe genres, making for wide-spanning story lines, without any of the backdraws, and all the time remaining fun, retaining basic emersion in the context that the characters themselves are still 'basicaly people', and leaving ample room for artistic free expression at every step, the superhero genre is actualy highly limiting and dependent on tropes and cliches, made interesting merely by the artistic merit of certain issues or the general popularity of some portion of the plot, and basicaly appears as a sort of multimedial monoculture working itself out into eventual extinction

>the biggest fault is its very dependence on the character of the superhero, as opposed to hundreds of different possible types of protagonists found in other, non-superhero, comics, even where 'superpowers' in terms of magic or sci-fi tech are involved as plot devices

discuss

Yeah, capeshit is cancer.

holy run on sentence batman!

metabarons is my shit

This guy is talented. But completely nuts. Asshole makes Morrison looks sane.

So basically he's complaining how you can't show children getting brutally murdered, dismembered, and decapitated in Batman?

And he is a huge pretentious asshole that LOVES to stroke his ego like it was a 9 inch dick.

he didnt write it tho, jodorowsky thought it all up

Pretty Much. His movies are nothing but people backstabbing each other all the time.

Don't be fucking stupid. Attack his ACTUAL argument instead of boiling it down to some retarded strawman.

I thought he was too buys begging for money

no, im complaining how batman is a absurd novelty character and any 5 page 'war story' comic has better protagonists than costumed up vigilantes, not to mention stuff like pic related

Okay.

So basically he's complaining how you can't show children getting brutally murdered, dismembered, and decapitated in Batman?

...

now youre just trolling tho

>the superhero genre is actualy highly limiting and dependent on tropes and cliches, made interesting merely by the artistic merit of certain issues or the general popularity of some portion of the plot, and basicaly appears as a sort of multimedial monoculture working itself out into eventual extinction
No, he's complaining that the superhero genre is highly limiting and dependent on tropes and cliches, made interesting merely by the artistic merit of certain issues or the general popularity of some portion of the plot, and basicaly appears as a sort of multimedial monoculture working itself out into eventual extinction.

Why are those men invading that halfling city?

That's retarded, that definition of superheroes is arbitrary.
Also run on sentences like that are a pain to read through.

This is actually a pretty good point and explains fairly well why cape stuff tends to feel so generic.

But it is true. The hypocrite talks about how much we should be making idealistic movies while most of his stories are nothing but edgy shit made by some old hippie on LSD.

>it's a "arthouse" guy is mad other genres are more popular than his works

Hypocrisy doesn't make the things he said wrong dipshit.

This isn't really true either all his comics are pulpy genre nonsense.

I think superheroes are more a symptom than an actual problem

The problems are that comics are a teeny, tiny niche market in America. And there's hardly any reason for that to change.

And because America is very large and visible, from a pop culture standpoint, the rest of the world--places that have healthy sensible comics markets, even--look at America and go "Superheros? Well, there must be something to that!"

And there is. There is a clear cut appeal in brightly costumed weirdos beating the hell out of each other in a grand fashion. But superhero comics being the dominant force in American comics is the result of a series of weird quirks of fate, not some sort of divine providence that is indicative of a superior narrative value.

No. But it does making him a shit eating hypocrite.

Why the should I give a shit about that?

Everyone loves to shit on cape comics and so on but very rarely do you see people complain about the actual problem, the shitty fans.

the point is they are superheroes

it would be enough if they were just badass characters in interesting settings, any possible thing could be done with that, any thing possibly imaginable, visualy, storywise, conceptualy

but no, they must first fart lightning and shoot cum out of their wrists, then put on a fetish costume, and then it gets interesting

i mean, other than as a plot device, what possible need for superpowers, costumes or any of the other superhero lore crap is there in a story where the characters have guns?
that its not the same thing isnt the point, the point is you could do all the exact same things with both the characters and the story, if ordinary guns arent fun enough make it plasma guns or somefuck

someone could make a comic about ordinary working joe dudes getting in a drunk fight in a bar and make it as epic and as cinematic and as heroic as any xy-man vs yx-man iteration, all that is just a queston of art style and screenplay any way, none of the scope, monumentality or intensity of supehero comics actualy come from the supeheroes being superheroes any way, in fact it seems most succesfull artists of note that worked for dc and marvel in the last decades made something good precisely by trying to partly ignore, escape or othervise get up from under the whole superhero shtick

>Jeremiah
>good
Hermann's a good comic artists, but a pretty shit writer.

How is Metabarons different from capeshit?

>very rarely do you see people complain about the actual problem, the shitty fans

Well when Moore does it everyone gets defensive and just begins to tear him down and accuse him of being nothing, but a bitter old man

no one is forcing him to use earth as a setting just look at guardians of the galaxy

>problematics
I assume you took this from tumblr, but I agree.

Fresh shit attracts buzzing flies.

>whereas non-superhero settings allow for as widely diverse situations, moments, problematics, interelations betveen characters and/or groups, all sorts of powers/magic/technology
This isn't true though. It's true that the superhero genre is limiting... because it's its own genre. But, lets say for example, the zombie genre is just as limiting. Any movie, book, comic, video game about zombies is just as limited as anything about superheroes.

What I'm saying is it's retarded to single out superheroes when every specific genre has limitations.

The only real flaw of cape comics is the lack of endings. They go on forever and require multiple people to maintain them. Not every single person has the same final vision for the character, so we get consistency and pacing problems depending on how many people have their hands on the character. Every other complaint about them is more based on the writers and the artists falling short of excellence.

>How is Metabarons different from capeshit?

They procreate, their kids survive and take up the mantle and they die when they're killed.

Isn't that the Phantom's thing?

I'm under the impression that we're still with the 21st Phantom.

This is a retarded argument, superheroes are one of the most creative genres. I mean where do you get universe jumping shit like Dial H with a whole universe that is 2d and made in chalk. Or Demon Knights which is both superhero and high fantasy. What about Guardians of the Galaxy that is just set in space and has a talking tree and talking raccoon, but yet, still is a superhero story. Superheroes have trench coat anti heroes, literal gods, fantasy warriors, spacemen, aliens, animal people, fucking anything and everything goes. The fact that Shade The Changing Man and The Metal Men can exist in the same universe shows the malleability of the superhero genre

u guys are fucking dumb

But that's not true at all

He's confusing the limitations of the genre and the industry. What about Watchmen?

You missed the point, the problem is how reliant superhero comics are on tropes and cliches, setting the same basic story in space with raccoon people doesn't make it any more interesting than if its set on earth with regular people.

The majority of the differences you've listed are cosmetic, the core story remains bland and uninteresting because they focus on superheroes.

What are the tropes and cliches? Are jodorowsky comics cliche free?

And you're being retarded in failing to acknowledge that superheroes have become a supergenre in the American comics industry that has become synonymous with the term "comics" itself. And as such is trying to handle way more than its extremely limited scope realistically allows for.

I mean, the butthurt in this thread alone for what is pretty much a factual statement shows as much.

More genres = more variety. That's the entire point. With superheroes, if you don't like Greek gods in spandex, you're shit out of luck.

>I mean, the butthurt in this thread alone for what is pretty much a factual statement shows as much.

Where's the factual part?

>The fact that Shade The Changing Man and The Metal Men can exist in the same universe shows the malleability of the superhero genre

They don't. It's pretty obvious that all these heros actually live in their own pocket-dimension.

Using one genre versus multiple genres means less diversity. Nobody is saying you can't enjoy your capes, you butthurt superfag. They ARE saying capes are maybe not suited for every single storyline people want to do.

I think the problem is the name of the genre. "Superhero" makes you think of guys like Superman; brave, kind, self-sacrificing and super-powerful. In reality, the superhero genre has much more to offer than that, with various shades of "heroic" and more than its share of antiheroes and other morally ambiguous characters, including characters who technically don't have superpowers at all. I mean, DKR is a superhero comic and so are Irredeemable, The Boys, and Top 10. Yet all of those are far from the "super heroic" ideal in their own ways.

That isn't to say that the superhero genre doesn't have a lot of self-imposed limitations, but the same goes for fantasy. Basically anything goes in superhero comics, but 99% of the writers still stick to variations on generic capeshit. In the same vein, anything goes in fantasy comics, but 99% of the writers still stick to variations on generic Tolkien/D&D shit. That's not a fault in the genre itself, but in the writers.

I don't think this says anything about the creativity of the genre. It just means you can put superheroes into any kind of story.

>Nobody is saying you can't enjoy your capes, you butthurt superfag.

Sounding defensive there.

You're the one being defensive, user. And why, really? Because someone said that maybe your favorite genre shouldn't be the ONLY genre? What's even the problem with that statement?

>They ARE saying capes are maybe not suited for every single storyline people want to do.
No, he's literally saying that there's a wide variety of genres and settings and that a story can span multiple genres, but that superhero stories are inherently highly limiting.

Which is bullshit, because the superhero concept can and does span as many genres as any other story concept.


It's true of course that not every story should have superheroes and there's definitely an imbalance in superheroes vs every other genre in american mainstream comics, but the idea that any one limits you to only sticking to the tropes most common to that genre is retarded. It's like claiming you can't have a fantasy story without including arrogant elves, gruff dwarves and violent orcs.

My only posts in this thread were and So yes, you suddenly sperged because someone dared to ask you a question.

Both Irredeemable and The Boys are conscious deconstructions of the genre, though.

I hate that capeshit = comics to most people. There's no room for artistic expression and it's art so that's fucking stupid. Comics have a huge scope for storytelling and art from possibly anyone from any background, yet all that most comics fans read is dudes in tights punching shit. It's derivative garbage made by large companies. Grow up. It's sad that on Sup Forums, a place where on other boards you can talk about the most counter-culture and niche art, the comics board finds everything other than capeshit just too challenging. Capeshit is cancer and are 90% of comic book fans.

A comic deconstructing superheroes is still a comic about superheroes.

Asking stupid questions, accusing others of being autistic and defensive, and refusing to engage in argument is being defensive, user.

Answer the question: What's your problem with the statement? Why should all comic be superhero comics, according to you?

Yeah, but a deconstruction of the genre it's part of doesn't mean that genre is broad. In fact, deconstructions are more likely to occur in genres that have lots of repeating tropes, because deconstructions poke fun at tropes and clichés. Which means that they basically prove the point in the OP right.

It's still an internal thing, though. It still relies on tropes common to superheroes. If you don't like them, or don't understand them, you're shit out of luck as a reader. It's not the genre stepping beyond itself. Quite the opposite, in fact.

>Why should all comic be superhero comics, according to you?
Ebin strawmanning.

>two word response

My fucking greentext of your post has more to say than the actual post. I hope you're trolling, because if you aren't, it's just sad.

EVERY genre has common tropes you can poke fun at. Fantasy and Sci-fi more than anything. That doesn't mean those genres are inherently limiting, or that you can't write that genre without sticking to the common tropes.

There's no argument you can make against superhero comics as a genre that doesn't apply to other genre fiction, other than the fact that they're overrepresented. Pretending they're in any way less "free" or creative is just mindless elitism.

>My fucking greentext of your post has more to say than the actual post.

Ebin argument dodge

>failing to acknowledge that superheroes have become a supergenre in the American comics industry that has become synonymous with the term "comics" itself.
So? That has no bearing on what this faggot said or what you're trying to say, you ignorant cunt. Every genre is going to have its limitations. Yea, superheroes are the most popular genre of comic in America. No one's denying that. But every genre is going to have its limitations and it's retarded to single out superheroes just because it's the most popular.

You're not worth replying to in any serious manner because your argument is ridiculous and entirely based on petty insults.

How do you like your potatoes cooked that way?

They're Kender. They deserve to be slaughtered to the last.

I think he wants to see something like the expansive storytelling in manga applied to american comic books. Not everything have to be about spandex-wearing heroes, it could be a slice of life of high school students, or a medieval fantasy. Something akin to before the comic code where comics aren't dominated by capeshit.

Comparing superheroes to Fantasy or Sci-Fi is comparing apples to oranges. Superheroes are basically a subgenre of science fiction (I believe they originate from the Lensman novels).

And as a genre, it IS limited in scope, and the clue is right in the title: Superhero comics require superheroes, and superheroes are a very specific trope. That's the definition of limiting.

>Pretending they're in any way less "free" or creative is just mindless elitism.

Frankly, I think it's elitism to claim that superheroes can do literally anything that other genres can do. I mean, if that's how genres worked, we wouldn't even have them. No science fiction, no fantasy, no romance, no thriller. It'd all just be fiction. Superheroes as a genre is good for doing superhero stuff: Focus on the implication of individual developing mindboggling superpowers and the implications of that. Anything that isn't that, is done better in something other genre.

I mean, take a Western story. They used to be pretty popular in Europe. Moebius did Blueberry, after all. Would a typical Western story REALLY be served better by making the main characters superpowered supermen?

The major problem is that comics in other genres do exist, it's just that outside of a few breakaway successes they tend to sell poorly and are thus limited to smaller niche/indie releases and don't get much mainsteam exposure, which in turn means that they sell poorly.

You're an idiot. This is the dumbest thing I've read on here today. All you capefags are so incredibly defensive and easily insulted, it's crazy.

Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the two massive corporations that have a vested interest in maintaining their media empire.

BUT
WHAT
ABOUT
WATCHMEN

>All you capefags are so incredibly defensive and easily insulted

Sounds like they do have something in common with you then.

Both of the big two publish and have published non-cape comics. If they could actually make money off of them, they'd do it more often. Corporations are interested in your money, not in what genre you like.

Those exist in webcomics. The market for print comics is crazy small in the US, most likely due to the way their business model is structured and the way IPs are managed by law and business.

Oh, sick burn user! Truly you are the master of wit!

I don't even hate superheroes. I just hate the faggots who read them, and act like dicks when people point out other genres exist, and maybe deserve a little more exposure. Shit son, there's only so much you can do with spandex-clad power fantasies, and I don't see why capefags act like you killed their dog and bragged about it when you say that.

>I thought he was too buys begging for money
Fuck you, bitch, Jodorowsky is a good. He helped the author of Akira to come up with the ending to the story after he reached a creative blank.

>I mean, take a Western story. They used to be pretty popular in Europe.

They still are. You gotta remember that reprints are normal in Non-US markets and that Tex Willer is still pushing more issues in Italy than Batman does in all of North America.

It's a matter of interpretation, mostly. Green Lantern can be seen as sci-fi. Demon Knights can be seen as Fantasy. Conan can be seen as a superhero. Jedi Knights can be seen as superheroes. Hell, the Metabarons basically are superheroes in almost every way, and still he's complaining. There are no set-in-stone differences and there's plenty of room for overlap. Also, just because a genre started out as part of another thing doesn't mean it can't become its own thing over time.

Also, just because other genres do certain things better (or even just different, which is good enough for diversity's sake alone) doesn't mean superhero comics can't do those things. Superhero horror is a poor match 99% of the time and are rarely as good as actual horror comics, but that's no reason there should be no cape comics with horror elements, or horror comics with superheroes.

Finally, please stop pretending that anyone is actually arguing that all comics should be superhero comics. It's incredibly disingenuous and makes me thing you're completely failing to understand what I'm actually saying. Just because it's entirely possible to do a superhero western (and there have been plenty of those already), doesn't mean that regular western comics need to turn into superhero comics. That's just dumb.

>Oh, sick burn user! Truly you are the master of wit!

>I don't even hate superheroes. I just hate the faggots who read them, and act like dicks when people point out other genres exist, and maybe deserve a little more exposure. Shit son, there's only so much you can do with spandex-clad power fantasies, and I don't see why capefags act like you killed their dog and bragged about it when you say that.

Your post is incredibly defensive and shows you are easily insulted.

You're not telling me that manga is as insanely popular as it is, and Eurocomics in the rest of the world, that it's impossible to make money off anything that's not capes.

It's definitely possible to make money off them. But they already have a massive marketing empire built around one, single product. Even their rivalry works with that, with people professing to be DC or Marvel readers. Which just seems idiotic to me, but whatever.

>Finally, please stop pretending that anyone is actually arguing that all comics should be superhero comics. It's incredibly disingenuous and makes me thing you're completely failing to understand what I'm actually saying. Just because it's entirely possible to do a superhero western (and there have been plenty of those already), doesn't mean that regular western comics need to turn into superhero comics. That's just dumb.

I think he doesn't really give a shit about genre variety in comics. He just wants to blame superhero comics.

Other genres exist, user. You could try reading them sometime.

But that's looking at the "problem" backwards. Nobody said it was necessary for characters to wear garrish costumes and have superpowers to have a good comic, and that doesn't mean stories which do feature those things have to be bad.
The only things that make them superhero stories rather than just hero stories, as you inadvertedly point out, are those tropes, so complaining the genre being limited by its tropes is stupid. Which, again, makes the definition of the genre pretty arbitrary.

I mean what's the real difference between Lucky Luke and Superman?

The point is that manga and eurocomics already exist, and Marvel and DC can't compete with them (they tried and failed several times). In the end, books that sell keep selling, and books that don't sell get axed. That's not some conspiracy to promote superhero comics above all else, that's just the usual short-sighted capitalism.

And if you want manga and eurocomics, you know where to get them. More money means more comics, even if they're imported. Just because that isn't the Big Two's business doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

People shit on the fans all the damn time. What the fuck are you smoking?

>Conan can be seen as a superhero. Jedi Knights can be seen as superheroes. Hell, the Metabarons basically are superheroes in almost every way, and still he's complaining.

Yeah, OK, you're just trying to shoehorn your genre tropes into other genres at this point. None of those characters are superheroes, because even if some of them are "superpowered" (but not in the same way superheroes are), none of them are vigilantes. Which is literally half of the superhero genre's name.

>Finally, please stop pretending that anyone is actually arguing that all comics should be superhero comics. It's incredibly disingenuous and makes me thing you're completely failing to understand what I'm actually saying.

Oh for fuck's sake, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm echoing the OP by saying that you can't do everything with superheroes. As a genre, they are inherently limited to... superheroes. You're backpedalling to saying that you can put elements of other genres together, and you're not wrong. What I said is that superheroes are a poor vehicle to do stories that would be better in other genres. Which is the definition of limited scope.

I honestly don't know how you got this bullshit from my previous post. I've read it again, and I still don't see it.

>superheroes are a poor vehicle to do stories that would be better in other genres. Which is the definition of limited scope.
Name a single genre this doesn't apply to.

Your entire argument is based on literally nothing.

>I mean what's the real difference between Lucky Luke and Superman?

One cleaves to Western and Comedy tropes, the other to Superhero tropes.

Seems to me a lot of you guys are arguing that you can do anything with superheroes, because you can drop the tropes, but seem to forget that then they aren't superheroes anymore. Superheroes are defined by superhuman powers, costumes, and some form of vigilantism. Toss those out, and it's not superheroism anymore.

But user, the most popular Eurocomics are (by far) reprints or legacies from characters almost as old as (or older than) cape characters, and they arguably are from the same genre: adventure/comedy, with characters being heroic in them.
Astérix, Tintin, Lucky Luke and Spirou really aren't that different from each other, and share tropes between them, aswell as with cape comics.

He sounds very cranky.

Hush user. Bad things only apply to cape comics, and when they apply to other genres they're suddenly not bad, because only cape comics are bad.

>Name a single genre this doesn't apply to.

Point out where I said it doesn't. Go back through the posts you responded to, and quote the sentence where I said that other genres are not limited by their tropes.

Oh right, I didn't say that. That's just a strawman you built to knock over with your bullshit arguments.

You, on the other hand, go around claiming that fucking Fantasy and Science Fiction protagonists are all SUPERHEROES because they punch people slightly harder than the average person.

>Point out where I said it doesn't.
If it doesn't, then the entire argument is moot and there's nothing more limiting about superheroes than any other genre. QED.

The point, since post 1, has been that USING superheroes as the single fucking genre for everything is limiting, you mong. And you responded to that by saying Conan, a Fantasy character with zero superhuman powers, is a superhero, pretty much proving the entire point.

Yeah, real solid arguing. QED.

>Superheroes are defined by superhuman powers, costumes, and some form of vigilantism.
So you've never read Lucky Luke, eh?
You could argue his costume is normal (although it's colorful, pretty unique and recognizable) but other than that he fits the definition.
So anyway, is Batman not a superhero? He doesn't have powers. How about the Question? He dresses pretty casual. What about governement-sanctionned supers?
Is Robin Hood a superhero? How about Zorro?

I've been arguing that defining the genre by its tropes and then saying the tropes limit it is retarded, it's circular reasoning.

>moot

Who?

No, user, it's the fans who get enormously buttblasted when you literally say "your favorite genre isn't suited for every story" that are bad.

But no, go back to some thread bitching about how your favorite costumed hero suddenly being black or a woman is the end of the world.

>Conan, a Fantasy character with zero superhuman powers, is a superhero
One word: Batman.

You're falling apart.

>USING superheroes as the single fucking genre for everything is limiting
No one is doing this though, you daffy shit. Even DC puts out plenty of non-superhero comics. Not to mention all the non-superhero comics that are published outside the Big Two.