Superheroes are a dumb concept if you try writing them in any way remotely realistic or seriously. They're bootlicking upholders of the status quo that don't lead to any real systemic change in the world. And no, individual action is not systemic change. They have all this tech at their disposal and they barely share any of it with the world around them. And yet, by tightly controlling the advancement of science and technology and turning every super genius into a tech hoarder, humanity is now almost entirely at the mercy of capes, supervillains or clandestine government groups. Capes are independent unreliable agents in the first place. A public standardized weapon loadout would deter crime by bolstering police, private security organizations, and private citizens. Being a superhero is also inherently fascistic and narcissistic.
These are just some of many reasons why no actual legit writer or artist wants to touch the concept of superheroes with a 50 foot pole.
He's correct. The entire concept of a superhero doesn't work with anyone that actually wants to write or make a good story with three dimensional characters.
Kayden Jackson
>Raimi Sure >Waititi ???
Jaxson Hernandez
Yes
Even if you don't find his Thor movies funny, I sure as hell don't, I still commend him for not taking the stupid ass concept of superheroes seriously.
He treats supes like a joke because that's exactly what they are.
>Superheroes are a dumb concept This is all you needed. >These are just some of many reasons why no actual legit writer or artist wants to touch the concept of superheroes with a 50 foot pole. Almost every writer or artist has written or drawn some variation of Superman or Batman. Now stop making this thread. No. There are no good live-action capeshit directors.
Nathaniel Wood
>Almost every writer Fucking what M8?
Austin Robinson
Peak midwit intellectualism
Nicholas Price
Great, another shitty copypasta thread
Eli Myers
Or artist. In comics, of course. So?
Grayson Collins
Except it's the complete truth and you have no actual counter argument. Which is why you didn't put one
Charles Davis
But then the movies aren't good. And if the movie isn't good then how are they a good capeshit director?
Xavier Reyes
There really is no point in engaging with OP considering they can't even bother to type their own post up, it's just a vain attempt to garner (You)s
Aiden Nelson
See pic related for proof, you can find a thread duplicate in the archive if you search for the text too.
Okay? And? Just because something is ridiculous and isn't congruent with reality doesn't mean it can't be interesting and entertaining. You sound like like that fat fuck George RR Martin bitching about the tax code while writing a fantasy story filled with mostly unlikable rapists and murderers because realism = good story.
When you look at a goodie two-shoes or a mustache-twirling villain you're not looking at anything that resembles real people.
Real people have flaws, and it's by exploring those flaws we learn more about ourselves and others. This is why we find it interesting, that's why it's good story-telling.
Kayden Green
Watchmen was Alan Moore essentially trying to cope with a world where the black and white morality of supes being contrasted with shit like Vietnam and a general disillusionment with the establishment. So he paints the superheroes as falliable Not really? You can still tell an interesting story with characters that are flat characters, the point relies more upon the usage of those characters. Fuck man, Iago is like the flatest evilest piece of shit because he contrasts with the complexity of Othello and his descent is the simplistic hate of Iago, his jealousy and scheming paints him so obviously as the type of mustache twirling you scorn. You assume that all characters must be complex but really it just matters more for the story you wanna tell and the role the character wants to play. Sometimes characters need to be flat just to serve a purpose desu for another character.
Sebastian Jackson
>Flat characters can Do 1 book max before it turns into the author masturbating. That's the thing about truly static main characters, they only have story to tell so every book will become a copy of the first. Flawless characters are fine as a one off thought experiment. The follow ups are invariably garbage shovelware. For external conflicts to matter, they must cause internal conflicts as well. Real doubt and fear must exist, the character must truly flirt with compromise, and the solution must not be handily done. It's fucking performative because it's always handily done, even if the author bothered to mime the rest.
Michael Perez
>stories must be infinite that sounds more like your issue is with cape comics continuing on and on. That issue lies with the publisher wanting to keep a brand going. Your issue then follows just read cape comics by writers who aren't hacks. Or better yet stop reading the same fucking books when they change authors and instead follow artists and writers you like desu. Or idk read noncapeshit in general god knows they need the money.
Juan Thompson
>No argument
Kevin Russell
It's not an argument to be made, your issue isn't with flat characters your issue is with an infinite series without developments. Which is like more an inherent problem of the serialization of a non creator driven project my dude.
