"here is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday. Today's superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he's aggressive, sarcastic, and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity." She goes on to say "When not in superhero costume, these men, like Iron Man, exploit women, flaunt bling, and convey their manhood with high-powered guns." In the past, she believes heroes were figures kids could look up to because "they were real people with real problems and many vulnerabilities."It got me thinking. I mean, I'm hardly a Doctor of Psychology, so what do I know, right? Maybe she has a point. But, I think the flaw in her reasoning has to do with her lack of pop-culture knowledge, and that is where I come in.
So, I think the argument has merit, but is ultimately flawed for several reasons. The first is that Iron Man is not your traditional super hero. The success of the movie, based on the comic book created in the '60s was based on the fact that Tony Stark was a flawed individual that was very different then the archetype of the costumed crusader trying to do good, and fight for truth, justice and the American way. This honesty is what makes the character so interesting, and the movie so good, because he isn't the normal.
Lets look at the whole "vulnerabilities" issue. Obviously, if she is talking about yesterday's superheroes, there are a few that stand out. Superman is the obvious choice for the argument, but the reason why Supes' has declined in popularity lately is that he is near flawless. Bullets can't hurt him, a speeding train can't hurt him, and character wise, he is a brave boyscout who is always trying to do the right thing; hardly the traits of a vulnerability. Sure, his issue is that he is an outcast in someone else's world, but it's not a vulnerability, it's a character trait.
Spiderman seems like another obvious choice for this argument. And unlike Tony Stark, he is trying to save the world, and bare responsibility for the power he was given. This doesn't seem like anti-hero traits to me. And, if you want to point out Spiderman gets into a lot of fights, then you should read the comic that was created back in the day. I doubt that has changed. What has set Spiderman apart, however, is that he is just a kid, trying to deal with all the things a young adult has to deal with, from girls, to school, to getting mugged in New York City. This seems like something to aspire to be, not something that sets a bad example.
So, there is some merit, as I said earlier. If you saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you saw an assassin/mercenary as the hero of the film. He was a proper anti-hero in that he had no traits of a hero, he was just less bad than the other guys. Does she have a point with that movie? Sure. But is that the norm? Absolutely not. If you don't believe me, look at the Avengers cast coming up. You have Captain America, hardly a flawed, vulnerable anti-hero; you have Thor, who is a god thrust down to learn humility and use his power for good; you have the Hulk, a good guy battling his inner demons, and you have Iron Man, who is kind of a jerk, but a guy who is starting to embrace this whole hero thing as a way to make up for past ignorance.
So, enough about my opinions, what are yours? Would you want any kids you may or may not have yet watching today's heroes? Are they really different from yesterdays heroes? Are brussels sprouts the worst food on the planet? Alright, that last one doesn't matter, but what about the other two?
