Are Superheroes over-represented, if so, why?

General
41

I don’t think they’re over-represented, just popular for many reasons.

A lot of fairy tales/fables/stories from the past were used to address socio/political issues of the period in a less direct way. Super hero stories are kind of the modern day version of that and allow a vehicle for the authors to tackle real world issues if they so choose.

They offer a classic villain and hero dynamic. It’s the “good and bad” needed in story telling offered right off the bat. Then you could play with so many iterations of that with the main character being the villain, or caught in between the two sides, or being the classic hero. But not many other genres offer you such elements from the get-go.

They allow for a lot of character growth and interesting group dynamics. Teens growing up with superpowers? Shows the maturation of the characters facing growing up with a “supernatural” element. Rag-tag group of outcasts that become loved by the public, outcast who finds a place within an idolized group, the fall of someone once loved by all, the rise of someone who feels they’ve been wronged, etc. etc. are perfect setups.

The setting is (mostly always) modern with mystical components that don’t typically require as much world building as adding in a different kind of magic. World building is still needed, of course, but the general public/government is also much easier to include with the acceptance and knowledge of superpowers vs. “mysterious magic.”

There’s many more reasons, but I think they as well as there being so many ways to explore this genre, make it such a good genre for IF. A lot, for sure, but I have yet to see a game very similar to another on here yet so I wouldn’t say there’s too many.

42

My own theory on the apparent overuse of superheroes is quite simple: boredom.
We have so mastered everyday life that the mundane is a terrific cause of boredom.

Superhero life and powers involve at least a discovery stage when people are trying to figure out the limits and rules of this new reality; a period of time in which boredom does not exist.

After the discovery period, the superhero/supervillain goes into a “what is normal life” phase, having to mix high and low fantasy, if I can borrow that term. Depending on the powers involved, “normal life” may be defined as something very different. That, I think, is a point of interest to readers/viewers.

To simplify: “What would I need to do in order to change my reality?” One analogy could be making money. If any given person had the superpower to make more money, then their reality might change. How about saving lives? Sure, get involved in the medical field. Want to get involved with alchemy and create new and exciting things? There’s a field of science for that; several, in fact. Want to rule the land? There are several spheres of “ruling” in the field of government.

If we assume superpowers have a real world counterpart, then what does the fantasy of being a superhero provide? Perhaps a sneak peak into a different life without the fear of failure. After all, how can you fail when you already have your powers? Of course, you can have your powers and still be able to fail, as many anime show us. The analogy there is a bit more realistic, because it addresses the concern of not being able to live up to one’s full potential. And in figuring out how to do that, boredom isn’t even an issue.

43

I’m confused…are you implying that the boom in superheroes is because Disney acquired Marvel in 2009? Because Iron Man 1 and the Dark Knight, two seminal movies of the genre, were released a full year before.

long rant about superheroes and their popularity

And before them, the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy had been a franchise juggernaut from 2002-2007. Before that, the original X-Men film trilogy which were arguably the start of this superhero boom when the first film was a box office success.

Except that’s not true, because X-Men was only greenlit because of the box office performance of Blade (1998), which itself came only a year after Batman & Robin. And say what you will about the box office performance of that film, but it was the fourth film in a franchise that started in the 80s, and before then had been Chirstopher Reeves’ Superman franchise starting way back in 1978.

And that’s not even getting to how ubiquitous superheroes have always been on television, cartoons, and of course comics books.

My argument is that superheroes aren’t nearly as much of a phase as people assume they are.

Where others see a surge, I see a steady climb in popularity and importance since they first came out in 1938, and anything that spans 110 years, in my eyes, is no longer a phase, but an institution.

3 Likes
44

I taught a superhero class and I feel like I have my own theory about this!

Superheroes (and monsters, another class I taught) are generally a response to the fears and values of the time. Around Superman’s creation (1938), the rumblings of WWII were happening and the entire world was in a state of fear and turmoil. You could argue that Superman (and the superheroes that would follow) were responses to that fear: characters that we could follow and emulate who were invincible to things we feared most; solutions to those things (violence, crime); and most of all icons that embodies what we valued most as a society. It’s why Superman is so Boy-scouty, apple-pie-America: he represents and draws from the ideals of that time. (And, of course, he now has to be “grittier” to appeal to an audience today.)

I’d argue that the current superhero boom started post-9/11 and has only continued to grow. Again these superheroes—escapist fantasies—serve as means of comfort, where good triumphs over evil, where an unstoppable hero can subdue multitudes of bad guys. Interestingly, though, superheroes have also adapted to change with our greyer, more ambiguous values: we’re quite divided as a society on what is a black and white, absolutely necessary “good.” (Not a bad thing, but we’re certainly up for more debate about it than we were back in 1930. Can murder be a good thing? Is there such a thing as sin? See Dexter, Breaking Bad, and Making a Murderer for more examples.) As a result, morally-grey anti-heroes like Batman and others have also become more popular or compelling. They better reflect ourselves now; and then of course you have more progressive and diverse heroes like Black Panther coming into the forefront, too.

This of course leads to a clash: do we desire these grittier, ambiguous heroes like Batman, or do we still long for the more colorful, campier escapist films of old? Which is how DC and Marvel have come to brand themselves: DC wants to be seen as dark and mature, while Marvel strives to retain that sense of fantasy, though some of their films are also trending that way.

Anyway, that’s why I think we have so much superhero fiction right now: it’s a response to an increasingly scary world. (Notice that monster films ala vampires and zombies were really popular in the early 2000s, but have died off.) As to why it’s so popular in IF, I’d say that it’s because superheroes represent so many possibilities and room for creativity that they’re a naturally-attractive form. The combinations of powers, weaknesses, names, costumes are limitless—and also comforting in their familiarity.

…that’s my rant, anyway! I miss teaching that class!

4 Likes
45

I’m not sure that I’d completely agree with that (although I haven’t done the math, so maybe there has been a significant spike.) Superhero movies have always been popular, you get runs of them. The themes might change a bit depending on the culture of the day, but they’re always there. I remember a heap of superhero movies before 9/11 in the 2000s. If I had to guess, I’d say the number of superhero movies has been increasing since the early 2000s, perhaps even earlier. Here’s a quick list (there’s definitely more than what’s on the scroll at the top of the page.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=superhero+films+2000s&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

As for why vampire and zombie movies were so popular for a while there, you got me. (I’m not saying I don’t like them, I just can’t see a social cause and effect there.) I kind of think it boils largely down to the studios want to put their money on a sure thing. If some movies in a particular genre come out and are popular, the studios keep making more of them (including lots and lots and lots of sequels and spin offs if they can get away with it.) Until something else builds up enough popularity to take over. Remember all those horror: I know what you did last summer/scream/blaire witch etc kind of movies that were so common in the 90’s in particular? There were so many!

1 Like
46

Um, what?

Where the hell do I sign up, please???

3 Likes
47

I agree with everything you posted but this snipped quote here.

Monster (vampire and zombie especially) movies and games are just as popular as they were then, they just share the spotlight now. They are also being produced to more targeted audiences; Netflix, other streaming services and many game studios continue to produce on a yearly basis as many monster titles and game modes as are superhero titles. The CW network and the AMC network are examples of comparable efforts in the superhero and monster (zombie in particular) programming.

The difference today is that the current superhero IPs are aggressively marketed and farmed by their new owners in ways not conceived of in earlier times and the superhero genre can be sold and marketed in the larger blockbuster markets easier than monsters including, increasingly China.

More “blockbuster” movies make money overseas now then they do in North America and as long as the Chinese censors allow it, western studios will keep evolving to reach more of that market to keep raking in more money and keep the traditional blockbuster alive.

4 Likes
48

Oh, I agree, there were certainly lots of superhero movies around before 9/11, but I think I misspoke: I would say that popular interest in them/demand has definitely increased steadily, and continues to increase. Superhero films were certainly fairly popular (though sometimes considered “nerdy”) but they never reached the insane box office numbers that they’re hitting today—records that they continue to persistently break. There will be an oversaturation point, but until then studios will keep milking it—we know that DC has ordered, what, 19 new superhero films to be slated until the 2030s? And a similar number with the MCU.

I could go on and on about the cultural reasons why zombies and vampires had a particularly big spike for a while, but I think that’s for another thread! :sweat_smile: But yes, once those movies start being made for (I would argue) subconscious or conscious sociocultural reasons, they tend to resonate with audiences in a big way; and then studios and companies pick up on that and order more and more until they drive them into the ground!

Haha! It was called “Superheroes: Of Myths and Men.” I cringe when I say it now… what was I thinking? :joy:

Personally, I would disagree with this. While the numbers of vampire/zombie titles being produced may have remained steady (I don’t think they have if we’re talking about that mid-late 2000s boom of Twilight, True Blood, Vampire Diaries, The Walking Dead, Resident Evil, Underworld, Van Helsing, ad infinitum), popular interest and audience reception of these things have noticeably waned. The Walking Dead was the most-watched cable drama of all time and broke its own viewer records consistently for five seasons; now there’s a steady bleed in viewership every season, and while it’s still quite popular, it doesn’t reach those numbers anymore. Those super-popular vampire romance dramas have largely disappeared from the market (and were weirdly replaced by zombie romance dramas for a hot second) and the void they left behind was filled by other things (Fifty Shades of Grey, for one thing). I do believe those monsters will persist and exist in one form or another for as long as we have cultural fears, but I do think the audience desire/interest in them has definitely weakened in favor of other things. I would say immediately after the zombie/vampire cultural craze was the “the true monster is within” phase, which featured a big interest in human anti-heroes doing monstrous things, but with the perspective of them being the protagonist. And right now we’re having (another) big “the government is the true monster” wave: Stranger Things is a good example of this. Also small-town Americana/innocence being invaded by the monstrous from outside: Riverdale is a good example of that, too.

1 Like
49

  • What is “monstrous,” anyway?

  • When we define something as such, what sort of relationship is built between the definer and the definee? Antagonism? Intolerance? Contempt? Empathy? Amazement? Appreciation?

1 Like
50

It depends, as our relationship with monsters has changed over time. In 1800s England, homosexuality, overt sexuality, and the foreigner were considered “monstrous” at the time: then came Dracula winging into England from Transylvania, to prey on men and women alike. But today, vampires have come to mean something very different to us as those things have become accepted and celebrated instead of feared and reviled—though “monstrous” in that they are not necessarily “human,” vampires are now desired, admired, sometimes wishful projections of ourselves in an almost superhero-esque way. So it really depends on what the subject and context is when we’re using the word “monstrous.”

Edit: And speaking of, aren’t there just as many “monster” games on CoG as there are superhero games? :thinking: Does anyone have a tally of both?

2 Likes
51

Then, is it safe to say that our definition of “monstrous” depends on current societal view?

If I can pretend to separate myself from society for a minute and think back to when I was very young, I remember monsters as a word that represented fear; unknown; danger.

I’m sure many people can relate to the life lessons we were taught as children…
Do not to talk to strangers.
Do not touch a hot stove.
Do not put metal in a microwave.
Listen to your teachers.
Respect your elders.

Were/are these lessons shaped around potentially good or bad experiences? These seem like preventative measures. As is, they are half-baked.

What happens if you touch a hot stove?
You get burned. It hurts.

(But if you get burned, then how do you treat a burn? How do I know how bad the burn is? How long before it heals? What sort of pain is an indicator of danger? If no one bothers to teach me these things, or ignores me when I ask, then maybe I’ll have to find out for myself?)

If, then, to classify something as monstrous is to invoke a fear response, then is it a fear that is explained or unexplained? Reasonable, or unreasonable? Logical, or irrational?

Is a love for, or a pursuit of, the monstrous, simply a want, or perhaps a need, for knowledge?
Is my use of commas monstrous? :wink:

52

We move in different circles … “the market” is a vastly different thing today than it was 10-20 years ago. If you limit your scope to those older and stale venues, then I agree (somewhat) that the superhero fare has supplanted the Monster stuff.

Yet, looking today’s complete media market, you’ll see that zombie/vampire/monster offerings haven’t disappeared, just moved over to share the limelight. It is ironic you mention Riverdale because the series itself is nothing new and different. These type of small-town invaders from the outside shows were in existence 20 years ago … What I see disappearing are the “everyday teen life” dramas … the shows that CW was made on like Dawson’s Creek … Shows like Vampire Diaries are just shifting to streaming on demand and new offerings in those new venues are still being released (eg Cargo by Netflix original programming)

Walking Dead may have lost some viewers but not only is it a renewable series, year after year, it still spawns spin-offs. According to your criteria, most of the CW’s superhero offerings of the past few years are complete failures … heck, Supergirl had to be moved from ABC to the CW because it couldn’t even survive two years on its original network and yet on the CW it has never had steady viewers.

Seriously look at what is happening outside of the established networks and the movie theaters and you see a marketplace growing so large and diversified that all the genres exist and are kept going with current popular releases. Netflix just snagged more canceled programming from the US tv networks and continue to release new seasons of shows, expanding their audiences. Likewise with BBC and other British IPs.

Netflix isn’t the only new source of programming that ignores the established paths. Look at Disney’s recent moves and even AT&T’s trying to merge with Time-Warner … they are all trying to develop niche marketplace presences.

Fifty Shades of Grey was more targeted to the Romantic Comedy audiences as a “permissible” cross-over that allowed normal people to taste the forbidden then as a replacement for Romance-drama offerings. It is more of a red herring than anything.

1 Like
53

I’m not sure if they are “over-represented”, but the image of the superhero (and especially the american version, not the Kamen Rider police officer or, y’know, Chapulín) has without a doubt become one of the pillars of modern society’s cultural landscape, to the point where even other genres adopt similar tropes and become essentially hero-esque. I mean, I like Downey Jr’s Holmes, but he’s basically a martial artist super-detective with a sixth sense.

A lot of that, I’d argue, comes from the superhero’s own ability to morph into other forms and genres. There’s very little of the Golden Age superhumans on today’s generation, especially because since the sixties, the genre was already having its transformations. The Fantastic Four are arguably the first: a team that is more than the Justice Society, I mean, a team that work only together, and not sort-of-frequently in monthly spinoffs. A team that is built around romances, families and sci-fi threats. Nothing encapsulates that better than the cover of issue #50: it’s the Galactus Threat! and then we’re off to see Johnny start college.

The Four might be the first, but they’re certainly not the only ones. Spider Man is also a good example. When you look at his early stories, you’ll see that they have something Silver Age Superman never did: continuity. Friendships sprouted, broke, sprouted again, new rogues appeared (or better, were formed) and nothing would ever be the same! Or, sort of. What I mean to get at was that the charater opened space for the narrative to stretch its legs on new chairs, whilst remaining clearly a superhero comic book, albeit one that didn’t live on a perpetual status quo where Clark Kent would forever be a reporter working in Metropolis who works under Perry White, is pals with Jimmy Olsen and crushes on Lois Lane.

This, I think, explains a lot of its conquests. Heroes Rise jumps to a reality-TV show. Fallen Hero explores complicated questions and relationships (or so I have heard, I still have to find the time to actually play it). Heck, Community College Hero explores one very specific face of superior education, itself already a very specific face of human experience. But they are all stories about heroes.

Of course, maybe another important aspect is the power of heroes to inspire. I’ve been very fond of comic books and superhero stories for quite a bit, and their chances to teach lessons of help me reflect on my situation is certainly a part of it. Their appeal to kids might also be a pretty big influence.

But the popularity of a few very specific characters can easily be explained, I think, because of our current social landscape. Quoting Grant Morrison, it’s no wonder, in an age of hyper-capitalism, that two of the most famous heroes are billionaires like Iron Man and Batman.

Of course, I’m not sure why there was such a boom of comics in the 90s, although they certainly shrinked in the 00s and made a definitive comeback in the 2010s when Avengers made a billion dollars. But that’s one long theory for another time.

Oh, and by the way, I’m not a super-research person, this is just a few of the opinions I’ve had from reading so many superhero comics and reading people talk about them.

2 Likes