News:

That line from the father's song in Mary Poppins, where he's going on about how nothing can go wrong, in Britain in 1910.  That's about the point I realized the boy was gonna die in a trench.

Main Menu

Watchmen and Philosophy

Started by Cain, June 08, 2009, 03:57:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Harper

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 08, 2009, 09:48:13 PM
Okay, tell me if I still dont get "it", but Watchmen is considered to be so great because it was the very first comic to have its characters deal with real human problems, or have anti heroes, or criticize society and/or human behaviour by caricature?

It was also the first comic I read that made heavy use of classic literary techniques and gimmicks. For example, the "play-within-a-play" situation with the pirate story.

It also did a good job of acknowledging and incorporating the spandex-nazi-lazer-vampire era of comics by including the "costumed hero" origins of the characters. Just the costume changes of the Comedian over the course of the book are interesting in that regard.
I need a truck. ~Zevon

The Wizard

Also there was the way it characterized the emotional tone of the Cold War. The paranoia and fear.
Insanity we trust.

rubickspoop

Finished Watchmen about a week ago, gave it some time to sink in, discussed it a little, read the article. Well, some of the article.
It had some great observations. Fantastic find, Cain, as always.
The end of the article really got me thinking, the part about how a current American trend is deconstructing ALL of our heroes; especially our musicians and Hollywood stars with scandals, the comic book hero with Watchmen (and films such as Fantastic Four, Iron Man, X-men are viewed satirically). Maybe even our film heroes with the rise of the man-child as a protagonist.
The article's author seems convinced that our concept of a hero will be reborn like a mutated phoenix from its ashes. I think I agree with him. In our current fiction, one particular type of hero appears frequently: the "average joe" who takes control of pressure situations. Captain Kirk in the Star Trek remake, Shia Lebouf in Transformers, Harry Potter, Nicholas Cage in any of his movies, The Day After Tomorrow, War of the Worlds movie adaptation, Stephen King and Dean Koontz's protagonists (generally), and more young adult fiction than I can be bothered to list. This hero reflects the growing Internet culture where everyone is a hero in their own lives if they want to be by tweeting/blogging/uploading pictures and videos. The lasting popularity of reality TV further reinforces this theme with American Idol, SYTYCD, America's Got Talent, a return of American Gladiators, and a serious version of MXC. It also reflects the Independent movement within modern music, with thousands of indie bands that get semi-popular for being average. From the combination of these trends, like Ozymandias viewing 100 TV's at once, I see an emerging hero with few skills, an indomitable will, passion, confidence, and cool under pressure. Perhaps these are some of the traits we value as a society?
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here!

Cain

Could be, yeah.  What I like about those sort of heroes is that there isn't necessarily a You Are The Chosen One vibe to them, which I think is perhaps a failing of previous heroes and the genres.  The whole word revolves around the hero, at least at some point (hell, they even managed to turn Deadpool - heroic sociopath and classic Nineties antihero - into one of these for a while).  Whereas, as you point out, the sort of hero that seems to be emerging is someone who accidentally gets thrown into events well outside of their control or concern and through general badassery and fortitude, decides to pitch in.  The rise of the Badass Normal, to use the TV Tropes nomenclature.

I think that allows for the complexity of darker works and deconstructions to still be used, while not going down the sort of Frank Miller route of almost parody versions of the genre (unless its intentional, in which case he is a genius.  But I doubt it).

rubickspoop

Yes, definitely a rise in the Badass Normal. However, is it really bad ass to jump into a situation where you have no control or experience and try to fix it? My best example is the Star Trek remake, where the punk-ass kid who was about to get kicked out of school finagles his way on board the Enterprise and through a series of unfortunate events and chance ends up as captain. Now in RL, the crew would most likely panic or mutiny. However, Captain Kirk saves the universe. I feel like the Badass Normal sends a dangerous message that you don't have to have education or prove your skills to be successful. It really promotes amateurism, or, taken to an extreme, bullshitting your way through life.

Frank Miller: Genius? Or a shoddy imitator?
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here!

Cain

Sometimes that is true.  Especially in the case of the Star Trek film, which was really just an excuse to have Kirk be Kirk, Spock be Spock and things in space go "boom!"

However, in longer works, you have to look at it like this: the normal character exists in a world filled with things far more dangerous, powerful and connected than themselves.  How then, can they have an effect on the world without ending up dead?  Blowing shit up with wild abandon is one way, but usually only works in movies, because of the normally limited time frame of the story.  In a book, or comic, or TV series, it becomes less plausible as time goes on, unless they have other skills to call upon.

Batman, for example, is shown in the comics as insanely prepared.  He has plans whereby he can take down pretty much every other good guy on the planet if necessary - and given the calibre of people they are, thats no small feat.  The Special Forces/Rangers guys in the Transformer films use some pretty nifty tactics to pin down and otherwise annoy the Decepticons in the Transformer films.  Noah Bennett in Heroes practically defines this, picking off superempowered people with ease either through expert planning, quick thinking or using other superempowered people against them, most usually a mix of the three.

I suppose it depends how good the writer is and how much time they really have to develop the traits to a believable point.

Requia ☣

I've always seen Miller as a lost genius, somebody who did incredible things once, but failed to keep up with the times and can't contribute at the same level anymore, instead rehashing his old ideas again and again.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

The Wizard

That's pretty close to the facts. I mean All Star Batman was unpleasant, an attempt to revive Dark Knight Returns and fuse it with Marv.
Insanity we trust.

Cain

I see it that way too from the hilarious reviews I have read, but lots of people think its intentional, or at least are willing to entertain the possibility.

The Wizard

Possibly. Still, I wish he would work on something that didn't resemble 300 or Sin City in some way. Branch out a little. He's too good a writer to keep himself confined in one kind of story.
Insanity we trust.

rubickspoop

Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2009, 12:34:15 PM
I suppose it depends how good the writer is and how much time they really have to develop the traits to a believable point.

I think a lot of it does depend on writing. In popular works, the writing tends to be shitty (this goes for movies, books, i don't watch tv shows with "heroes" so much and I know next to nothing about comics so I won't even try to go there). Movies have the most power to define the modern hero. A vast majority of comics have a small base of readers. There are few tv shows whose protagonists can be viewed as heroes: Heroes, Lost, Prison Break, NCIS/CSI, 24 ...any more? Books hold some sway, especially the viral shit, like Twilight and Harry Potter. But movies have the most power. 1.3 billion movie tickets were sold in the U.S. in 2008 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/). That's a little more than 4 movies in the theatre for each man, woman, and child in America. Add to that the movies seen outside the theatre... people watch lots of movies. Also, a vast majority of the top-grossing movies of all time were "hero" movies (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross).
The sway that Hollywood has in redefining our heroes worries me. Because the writing in movies tends to suck, and they don't have much time to develop great heroes.
Some of these heroes have a good set of skills to fall back on, but I have some other qualms with the emerging hero prototype. The combination of unassailable confidence and perseverance usually stems from a closed mind. Closed-mindedness peeves me. And heroes with closed minds worry me. Because people sometimes emulate their heroes, and more often respect heroic virtues. IMHO, A closed mind is not something that should be considered virtuous. And its a virtue that I can see emerging in popular movies.
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here!

Cain

Yes, this is true.  Movies are huge business and have a big social impact.  Still, I reckon decent programming offsets that to a degree.

Well I'm actually subverting this theme in the writing I'm doing currently, only to a much worse degree.  I'm basically inverting all those heroic traits and putting them towards a very nasty purpose, because I think in the worst writing you end up with a Designated Hero - someone who is seen in-Universe as the good guy despite doing some pretty horrific shit.  Every single Steven Seagal film, for example.  Or the "heroes" in Jurassic Park two.  Bond in the recent franchise reboot suffers from this a fair bit too, even though I like the films.

Bu🤠ns

:mittens:

Nice!  Its nice to find good commentary on the comic book medium rather than just a defense for the validity of it.  I suppose i should look around a bit more.

rubickspoop

Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2009, 10:35:54 AM
Yes, this is true.  Movies are huge business and have a big social impact.  Still, I reckon decent programming offsets that to a degree.

Well I'm actually subverting this theme in the writing I'm doing currently, only to a much worse degree.  I'm basically inverting all those heroic traits and putting them towards a very nasty purpose, because I think in the worst writing you end up with a Designated Hero - someone who is seen in-Universe as the good guy despite doing some pretty horrific shit.  Every single Steven Seagal film, for example.  Or the "heroes" in Jurassic Park two.  Bond in the recent franchise reboot suffers from this a fair bit too, even though I like the films.

Holy shit, Cain! I'm outlining a short-story with the same premise! Sort of a satire of the type of story I've taken over this thread to blast. I probably won't ever finish the story, but the idea is great, is it not?
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here!

Cain

Terry Pratchett has done some great satire along this theme.  Guards, Guards! hints at it, Susan lays it out plainly in The Hogfather at one point, Rincewind is the anti-version of this (a cowardly wizard who just wants to be left alone, who nonetheless has saved the world or large parts of it on several occasions), and Vimes and Carrot actually make for quite properly heroic characters.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20105.0 is where my idea is laid out.  I wanna play it more straight, partly because I'm also hoping to use the fiction to play out some of my ideas about international politics as well as critique this approach to heroes.