Men of Virtue: Or, Why Is It So Hard To Write A Good Guy?
People often complain about the difficulties of writing a Superman story. Writers just can’t seem to find enough meat to sink their teeth into when it comes to Kal-El. Folks like their superheroes gritty and complicated nowadays, and Superman is just so…well…simple. Pure. Vanilla, maybe even, although I hate that term.
Our widespread belief that superheroes must have deep, even disturbing flaws runs so deep that in 2019 filmmakers released the movie Brightburn, a film about what would happen if Superman were evil. (of course, Brightburn isn’t the first evil Superman story; far from it.)
Superman’s not the only good guy that seems challenging for writers. I’m sure we can all think of 4 zillion examples of good guys who are downright insipid compared to our beloved anti-hero Batverine. I’m not even going to write a list, that’s how much I’m convinced we can all conjure numerous mental examples of the Too-Good-To-Be-True supe.
Let’s just call this uncomplicated Good Guy Strawman for the sake of convenience. Of course, there are also Strawman’s female counterparts Captain Strawgirl and Wonder Straw. Most modern-day hero stories generally pit either Batverine or Strawman or both against a bad guy that is way more interesting than Strawman, leaving most of us wishing Batverine had more screen time and also kind of hoping that the bad guy wins.
But IS it really that hard to write a good guy? Or is the ubiquity of underdrawn heroes and overused antiheroes borne from the minds of people who have seen too many McG movies and have to get their script in to corporate before they can jet off to Martha’s Vineyard?
Well, I won’t keep you in suspense – I DON’T think it’s inherently that difficult to write a good guy and I DO think that lazy writing is behind whatever shortcomings Strawman manifests. I’m not saying it’s easy to write a good guy, because who the hell am I, I’m just saying it simply cannot be as hard as people are making it.
The first challenge of writing a Strawman character is that they’re nearly always overpowered. If a hero can come swooping in like a flying brick and blast someone with laser beam eyes or in the case of the female heroes, superboobs, and solve everyone’s problem without breaking a sweat, well, that doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for complexities of conflict, now does it? It then falls to the writer to invent a farfetched workaround like a magic rock, mysteriously waxing and waning powers (vanishing right when they’re needed most only to reappear also when they’re needed most), or a convenient case of short-term amnesia, to yield an interesting story.
You end up never getting to see Strawman actually DO anything. It’s hard to be a fan of a character if you never get to see them rock and roll (according to LeVar Burton himself, that’s why no one likes Geordi LaForge and everyone likes Mr. Scott. Geordi never got to rock and roll). It’s even harder to love a superhero when every time you encounter them, they’re weak and lying on the ground trying to work up the wherewithal to blast someone. Not only is it uninspiring, but it’s also flat out BORING. You never get an action sequence with your hero at their best, because their best would be unstoppable.
The second challenge of writing Strawman is that he has to be good. Like, good beyond good. Dude has to be purer than a bar of Ivory. We want our Strawmen to be not only uncorrupted, but incorruptible. Why do we want this? Because the only way we can trust unlimited power is if it’s in the hands of someone who literally cannot make any wrong choices ever, because morality is built right into their fundament.
Goodness in and of itself is not an insurmountable problem for a writer, as anyone who has ever watched High Noon knows, but Hollywood for the past 50-some-odd years or so has embraced the anti-hero to a ridiculous extreme. The ability of corporate writers to produce product with a straightforwardly heroic protagonist appears to have withered away from disuse. So, because we know that Strawman is incorruptible, there’s never any doubt in our minds that Strawman will do the right thing. No doubt = no drama.
Strawman presents one final challenge, in that writers rarely allow him to experience any actual uncertainty about what course of action to pursue. The majority of superhero stories contain only one correct way to solve a problem – typically a convoluted series of miracles in which somehow evil is punished and good emerges completely unscathed, yet no ethical compromises had to be made. Not only is Strawman boringly superultramegagood, but he also always knows instinctively which fork in the road to take, no wrong turns, no whoopsie-daisies. Coupled with the overly straightforward and unimaginative plotting that plagues Hollywood these days, this leads to a tedious, obvious, deadly dull storyline. The audience never gets to wonder even briefly if Strawman is making his fatal mistake this time. We know he isn’t. Even on those rare occasions a hero does get it wrong, there are rarely consequences that last longer than an act, an episode, or an issue.
Writers do often saddle a heroic character with crippling self-doubt, of course, but it’s merely a plot device. It may as well be a chunk of Kryptonite for all that it matters. When there’s only one reasonable decision to be made, there’s no legitimate reason to second-guess yourself. Strawman’s self-doubt is either time-wasting filler or a joke we the viewer are in on; it turns off and on as needed, whenever it’s convenient. We as viewers/readers largely ignore this incessant angst because in the end we know our hero will pull out the win somehow, no matter how much the deck is stacked against him.
While plot devices are invariably part of writing, they too often devolve into a crutch for lazy writers to lean on. The truth is, real life is chock full of situations where you honestly for the life of you do not know the right thing to do. In real life, you don’t get a map and there isn’t a fortune teller making prophesies, or Dr. Strange precogging the outcome of your every decision. Your choices all seem equally good – or more likely, equally terrible. And as most of us have learned through bitter experience, sometimes even the choices you made with the purest of intentions lead you someplace awful. The uncertainty borne from remorse would hamstring superheroes even more than it does the rest of us, yet in superhero stories, the One True Path is practically always available for the taking. Their constant self-doubt never feels real, and because it never feels real, it just seems like a waste of time.
Writers try to make up for these structural weaknesses – ridick superpowers plus goody-two-shoes nature coupled with an overly straightforward path – by making good guys act like jerks to make them more complicated or something. But this approach rarely works because the writers didn’t set up any believable motivation for the jerkish behavior. So, you end up with a character that is both dreadfully vanilla and yet somehow also a huge a-hole.
Exhibit A – Cyclops. Cyclops is a Strawman-type character I personally love and everyone else personally hates. I find a lot to like in Cyke even though he effs over my favorite superhero ever Jean Grey many times and also effs over her clone which is a relationship problem so convoluted not even SuperDoctorPhil could handle it.
The thing I like about Cyclops is that he has potential. Ok, so the dude made some penis-related mistakes in his personal life and was not a terribly good leader, like, at all. But that could be INTERESTING. There are a lot of funtastic ways to write an anti-hero and a horny dude who isn’t a good leader certainly fits the description of anti-hero to me.
But it just doesn’t work, which is why everyone prefers Wolverine.
It’s easy to blame this on the fans; after all, fans claim to want their superheroes gritty. Yet they have the temerity to complain about the particular flavor of gritty? People want their superheroes to be vigilantes in the streets but a gentleman in the sheets or something, I guess. They want dark and edgy superheroes that…never go too far?? And never make mistakes??? And never treat their girlfriends bad or act pissy with the people they’re working with???? Jeez Louise what do these people want, anyway? A unicorn that shoots laser beams out of its eyeballs or something?
After giving this a lot of thought I realized it wasn’t so much what Cyclops did that was the trouble. It was how it was done. With better writing the many peccadilloes of Cyclops could have become legendary (see also: Tony Stark). The trouble with Cyclops is that the writers were unwilling to dispense with the idea that people wielding massive amounts of power have to invariably be goody-two-shoes, while still wanting the fun of writing an antihero.
In short, the writers wanted to pull their punches. They wanted to create a Clarkentian good guy in Cyclops but at the same time be able to make him do bad stuff when they needed to spice things up a little. But making a goody-two-shoes into a jerk yields Frank Burns, and the last time I checked, he was a villain.
The anti-hero approach will never work on Superman, who is not only Clarkentian, but actually Clark Kent.
I think one of the best good guys ever written has got to be Farscape’s John Crichton. He’s a good guy, there’s never any doubt in your mind that he is, even when he has a bad guy inhabiting part of his brain. But circumstances he encounters make being a good guy harder for him and on him than it ought to be – just like how it’s tough to always be a good guy in the real world. As I’ve said in the past, being a good person is easy when everything in your life is food cubes and cream, but the harder things get and the more you suffer, the harder it becomes to stay true to your moral compass.
The complexity of John Crichton’s morality grows organically as he encounters situations his simplistic Earth-based system of ethics never prepared him for. Granted Farscape had 4 seasons plus a mini-series to tell John’s story and unlike most superhero stories, was perfectly cast (Ben Browder, who probably also should have played Cyclops), but it’s more than that. Crichton makes wrong choices based on bad information and even, at times (gasp!) personal weakness. The writers allow him to make those wrong choices sometimes and make him face the consequences even when they have to write their way back out of them again. Other times all manner of badness is thrust upon John by the actions of others, then it’s left to him to pick up the pieces. Crichton is plagued with self-doubt and regret for REASONS, not just because a script has to have 120 pages in it, so the writers had to pad it a little with some meaningless angst. Despite all the compromises he makes with himself (at times, literally) he continues to make an honest effort to be the good guy.
John Crichton, unlike Cyclops, never descends into anti-hero-dom even though he has every reason to. But his journey is never easy, and every step of it is uphill, with enemies coming out of basically every crevice of time and space to stop him. He’s not even safe from them in his own head. Crichton is practically always on the verge of defeat. But that’s why he’s also a better hero than Superman, who can’t be bested by anyone other than a magic rock.
It occurs to me as I write all this, that maybe you haven’t seen Farscape. I’d tell you to watch it, but some otherwise reasonable people I know didn’t care for it (the show, which was created and produced by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, features Muppets in prominent roles, and if that’s something you cannot abide, you’ll likely not enjoy Farscape).
Luckily, there are other examples of a successful good guy to fall back on. Superman will have to wander alone in the wilderness no longer.
I mentioned High Noon above, so let’s make it easy on ourselves and revisit it, since most people have seen the film. If you haven’t had the pleasure, High Noon is the story of a recently retired, newly married marshal (Gary Cooper) who has to face a cold-blooded killer he put behind bars, Frank Miller. Since Miller has a gang of men supporting him, Marshal Kane has to go to the townspeople, hat in hand, and try to get together a posse to stop the gang. But unlike modern day fare where this happens easily after an inspirational speech, the townspeople aren’t willing to help, each of them for their own prosaic reasons, leaving just the marshal to stand against the bad guys. Oh, and also, his new wife is a Quaker who tries to get her husband to run instead of fight, and along the way she has to discuss their predicament at length with the Marshal’s old girlfriend.
The drama in High Noon comes not from our hero going around being inexplicably surly and lashing out at people who want to help him, nor does it come from him being an unstoppable killing machine who for some farfetched reason loses his powers. It comes instead from the struggle Marshal Kane faces, from having every possible stumbling block (even his ex) thrown in his way.
What happens when a good, but fallible man is put into an impossible situation? Isn’t that a more interesting question than what happens when an incorruptible man encounters a magic rock?
Marshal Kane is in that impossible situation, but he doesn’t run because it’s not in his nature. He refuses to abandon the town he’d sworn to protect even though the residents of the town abandoned him first. He’s scared and angry, resentful and bitter, and he’s deeply mourning that beautiful new life he thought he was beginning. But he doesn’t run.
Successfully written heroes are not perfect paragons of virtue. (Only boring heroes are perfect paragons of virtue.) Heroes are heroes because they make a decision to be, an active decision, and it is a decision that does not always or even usually come without a steep price (see: Ned Stark). Their being willing to pay that price is what makes a hero’s story worth telling. If there’s no price paid, no cost to one’s actions, and the answers to hard questions come easily, painlessly, then the story lacks emotional punch. We may watch whatever-it-is for the explosions, but we won’t remember it even just an hour later.
Taking the lessons of Crichton and Marshal Kane to heart, how can we reclaim the good guy narrative for poor Kal-El? Because I can hear your protests – John Crichton and Marshal Kane are not Strawmen and thus the same rules cannot apply. I mean, sure, ok, it’s easy for a couple human beings to be flawed self-doubting good guys, but Kal-El is inhuman, flawless, and unstoppable. When it comes to paying a price, Superman basically has the ability to print his own money – whatever it takes, he can afford it. Even when it comes to winning the affections of the incredibly shallow Lois Lane, the dilemma is not that she doesn’t like him at ALL, it’s that she doesn’t like him when he’s Clark Kent. It’s not exactly an insurmountable problem; Clark Kent’s disappointing love life is the equivalent of a lump of Kryptonite, something that writers fall back on when they need to and ignore when it’s inconvenient.
Is it impossible to write a decent Superman story?
Of all the superhero stories I would love to write, Superman is number one with a speeding bullet because Superman is about the nature of good and evil. Superman is the living embodiment of humans possessing incredible power en masse (an army, a government, a corporation) and when and how to use that incredible power.
And there is the answer, the way to turn Superman’s flying brickishness into a strength. Because the correct answer to the question of when to use incredible, well-nigh unstoppable power is “sparingly”.
Sparingly.
Phenomenal cosmic power has to exist in our fictional universes since in its absence supervillains would run amok, but overusing power turns superheroes into villains by corrupting them absolutely, just the same as it does in the real world. The fundamental drama of Superman should spring from that ever-present temptation inherent to those who wield great power – whether or not to impose more than just the most basic and inarguable morality on citizens. The fundamental struggle of Superman’s existence is knowing when to use his power and when not to, and then afterwards having to face the consequences of those decisions.
Like John Crichton, sometimes Superman might act when he shouldn’t’ve, might abstain when he should acted, and sometimes even though he thought he’d made the right choice, might discover after the fact that there were terrible consequences for the call he made in the heat of the moment. The people he’s meant to be saving might come to curse his name for all the times he wasn’t perfect. They might hate him even more for the times he WAS perfect but was in an impossible situation due to ethical constraints.
In the hands of a thoughtful writer who didn’t constantly rely on cheats and short cuts and plot devices, Superman’s heroics or lack thereof would incur great cost in terms of guilt and remorse; in time he may come to find the cost too high. Like Marshal Kane, he may even come to feel betrayed by those very people he’d done so much to help. The people around him – Lois, Jimmy, Perry White, even the Kents themselves – don’t always or even usually understand his choices. Because that’s how life is – no one ever understands your motives but you and God, and sometimes not even them. Would a Strawman continue being a hero if he could never make anyone happy, not even himself? That quandary would be a great basis for an all-powerful good guy.
Rather than resorting to cheap trickery in which someone finds the ubiquitous lump of Kryptonite and Superman is reduced to a writhing heap of spandex-clad superhumanity, rather Clark Kent moping around because Lois is only into the other guy, what if the fundamental conflict of Superman was man vs. himself? What if rather than giving us manufactured drama and faux angst, Superman had to face an opponent he’s never really fought before – the man in the mirror?
Like the unstoppable robot on The Incredibles, only Superman is strong enough to hurt himself.
That’s a story I want to hear.
*On my blog, I have an original superhero story in which I try to reclaim the “Women in Fridges” trope in a more female-positive way, taking into account much of the thinking I’ve done about how to write a good guy. You can read it here: Women in Fridges – A Cold Day in Hell Part 1: “Boy Meets Girl, Girl Meets Fridge”
I want to throw an idea out there that will be controversial in nerd-dom. If you want moral complexity, and interesting good guys, stop looking for them in super hero media. You will never find them in entertainment that is targeted at children. The gazillions of dollars that go into these films are predicated on them appealing to preteens (not to mention getting passed Chinese censors). This is not to criticize fans of the MCU or DCU or whatever but I think a lot of people keep expecting a box of easy mac to have something in it other than easy mac.
I think the comparisons you use are telling. Farscape was originally targeted to adults (and was quite good right up until they tried to reinvent it to be more family-friendly in the 3rd season). High Noon, while ostensibly a western, is and was intended to be adult fare.
I’m not anti-genre fiction. I watch a lot of it. If you want some interesting good guys two shows I’ve been following are the Expanse and the Last Kingdom. Neither of them are appropriate for or would appeal to children. It’s really not the writers. It’s that they’re working with aging properties (or at least an iteration of them) created for elementary school aged boys and whose investment and profitability rests on that demographic.Report
While I don’t disagree with the childish treatments of superheroes and also that the writers inherit a mess they then have to deal with, I think the reason why superheroes are popular (same with Westerns, and I think they too started off more as kiddie fare back in the day, as did sci-fi) is that we see the potential within them to tell the types of stories that we feel need to be told. When I read what I would call “literature” and it’s about some aging college professor with a case of ennui or about how stifling Middle America is, and I just cannot relate to those themes. But a person struggling with living up to their own expectations (or not), learning how to use their own “powers” for good, and feeling like no one in society understands what they’re trying to accomplish, I relate to that more. I feel like sometimes genre fiction is talking about things that “literature” (at least modern fiction) doesn’t quite manage to pull off for me. So I always want it to be better than it is. Westerns, for sure, elevated themselves to a pretty elegant art form by the end of their run, and I’d love to see superheroes grow up at some point.
PS – if you’re ever bored my superhero story I link to in my piece really does tackle some grown up themes.Report
I don’t know that I’ve ever tried to read enough modern literature to have much of an opinion on it. The constant reading in my career kind of killed my ability to read for pleasure. I just don’t have it in me in my free time. But when I did my go to was always historical fiction. At heart most of them are adventure yarns. I’m not wedded to any idea of what an adult story ‘should’ be.
Maybe the super hero stuff can grow up, though I kind of wonder if the economics of what it takes to make them aren’t working against it. The two R rated movies I can think of (Logan and Deadpool) were both very high budget. That’s a lot to make back and I assume at least some level of spectacle will always be an expectation for the films.
I’ll bookmark the story and give it a try at some point (though no promises on when).Report
No worries, and please don’t feel obligated at all!Report
Really interesting. My personal favorite Superman was on Smallville, where he was still figuring out his powers and was a teenager, which meant he could make bad decisions. Similarly, a lot of anime have a teenage hero who’s still developing his powers. He may have a good heart, but it’s a lot easier to believe in his elf-doubt and lack of foresight. Also, origin stories – they’re a way to have heroes with flaws, and scriptwriters seem to love doing those.
I’d add one idea to your analysis: that the bad guys often have more unusual powers. I was just watching an anime where the male lead had the power to take over someone’s body for five seconds, and the female lead had the power to be invisible to one person at a time. Interesting stuff, but then the anime only ran for 13 episodes. A hero with a generic power, or a legitimately super power, can go on forever, but there’s less suspense; a hero with a weak or specific power has to always find himself in a situation where someone gets you really angry then dumps a pile of trash on you so you can turn into the Hulk without anyone knowing it was you. Not much variety either way. The variety in the stories comes from Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, and Condiment King.Report
I didn’t have space for this, but you may remember I’ve written in the past about why romantic ingenues are often young (it’s because they’re easier to write, since they don’t have an extended network of friends and family and work responsibilities) and I suspect there may be some of that at play in the superhero origin stories too. Way easier to tell a story about Peter Parker, a guy with very little going on, than say, a 45 year old businessman with all this life history you have to keep straight.
One of my pet peeves I haven’t written about yet but kind of fits into this is creating drama by putting realistic limitations on your characters. That anime sounds incredible (would love the name if you remember it) for that reason. I think on paper a hero that can get hit again and again and never passes out, or a car in a car chase that crashes 500 times but keeps running for some reason, or Arya being brutally stabbed and then somehow being able to run through a city to escape an assassin that’s already beaten her at fighting several times, in many writers’ heads seems like something exciting, but it’s really kind of boring. I wish they’d do more to let the drama flow from reality rather than things so ridiculous that they are impossible.
Agree 100% about the interesting villains.Report
The anime is called Charlotte, and it’s a real mess. It has maybe half a dozen different genres or scenarios across 13 episodes, and it’s not like mini-arcs. It just suddenly changes genre, sometimes mid-episode. But the first few episodes do a good job with what they call “half-assed powers”.Report
Thanks!Report
Maribou and I watch a tv show together during the week as a mini-date. We watched Batman: The Animated Series earlier in the year and are now plowing through Superman: The Animated Series.
One thing that I keep noticing over and over is that Superman’s powers are on a dial and the dial gets set arbitrarily depending on the needs of the show. Is Superman fighting The Toyman? Turn it to a 3! Is Superman fighting Lobo? Turn it up to a 6! Does Superman need to fight Darkseid? Welp, put it on a 10. Oh, Toyman is back with a robot kangaroo? Turn it back down to 3.
And so, over and over again, we watch episodes where Superman gets punched through a wall. Who’s the bad guy that can punch Superman through a wall? All of them!
While the movie Superman Returns was not particularly good (sigh) there was one amazing scene in there that showed us what Superman was capable of and it’s one of my absolute favorite Superman scenes:
Of course, the writers introduce kryptonite and Superman spends the rest of the movie being punched through walls.
How in the world can you write a bulletproof character well?
Well… I’ve got a couple of ideas. Have him be a supporting character. He shouldn’t have to carry his own book. Put him in Justice League, have him show up to talk to Batman from time to time, he can show up in the lesser comic books as a guy who flies over the city and inspires the B-Team.
And, occasionally, give him a stand-alone story like Superman vs. The Elite and then put him back in a supporting role elsewhere.
He’s an *AMAZING* character. It’s just that he’s only got but so many amazing stories and asking him to fight against The Toyman every few months? Not even Superman is strong enough to pull that off.Report
A huge digression, but lately it’s been driving me crazy hearing people talk about how the latest Superman ruined their childhood memories, or that Star Trek has run out of ideas. I understand the financial benefits of maintaining a franchise, but stories have never been expected to be usable forever. If Shakespeare had to write a new Romeo and Juliet movie every year, they would have ended up as wacky “can’t find a condom” sex comedies. Superman started off more like John McClane, and after six movies John McClane has turned into Superman. Create a setting, keep adding death stars to it, then make a deconstruction movie, then shut down the franchise.
Look at the longest-running franchise of all time. King Arthur started out as a local warlord, then became the beacon of goodness, then became a parody whose best friend was sleeping with his wife. Germ of an idea, expansion, deconstruction. We may retell Arthur’s stories every few decades, but we tend not to write new Arthurian tales.
Our era’s cynicism is reinforced by the fact that the stories we’re retelling are in the deconstruction phase. It’s made worse because we all know they’re being retold for cynical, financial reasons. Even video game storytelling is starting to crust over.Report
Enough time has passed for us to be able to say that, okay, maybe The Sequels could have been done better. In theory. I mean, nothing is *PERFECT* in this imperfect world. But even taking that into account, they could have been done better.
But The Mandolorian? Heck, yeah! Have a new character wandering around the setting. Not, like, running into Jedi or Empire people, necessarily, but just heading down to Tosche Station to get some power converters.
You don’t have to tell the story about Romeo and Juliet. Just pick a couple of guys and tell a story about them wandering around in Verona, falling in love.
Sort of like Thieves’ World.Report
I think the challenge is that mere use of a familiar setting comes with a whole bunch of expectations.Report
I haven’t seen The Mandalorian, but it looks like the inevitable Boba Fett / Yoda buddy cop series that Empire so heavy-handedly set up.Report
Isn’t there some truism about there only being like 60 possible plots and all creativity comes in the mixing and matching? Interesting stuff could be done but I think the financial aspects and particularly pressure to work with established successful characters and universes are killer.
It’s totally anathema to the ‘more, more, MORE!’ mindset about these things but all the best creators knows when to quit. Hollywood execs on the other hand with numbers to make will never see things that way, and as long as people are willing to shell out for the product well… here we will be.Report
It drives me crazy because it’s so WRONG. They’re limited in the stories only because the people conceiving the projects have so little imagination.
There are people all over the place writing fan fic for love, not money, who come up with unique things for these beloved characters to do.Report
Superman’s “world of cardboard” speech was an excellent companion to this OP.Report
YES! He’s got some *GREAT* speeches to give and there’s only but so many people who would appreciate them.
And, unfortunately, you can’t give them every week, month, or year.
I’d say that every 7 years is probably okay.Report
Thanks for reminding me!Report
For those who don’t know or forgot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_5UwS57X8Report
My husband’s pet peeve is in the Ang Lee Hulk, the Hulk got bigger and smaller depending on how angry he was. Now, it turned out that was by design, but “It’s just like The Hulk!” has become our shorthand for any hero whose abilities grow and shrink whenever it’s convenient.Report
Demands for realism in superhero stories is, on its face, silly.
But verisimilitude isn’t too much to ask… is it?Report
I can accept a world in which giant green men run around smashing. But that giant green man had darn well better obey the laws of physics consistently or have some explanation for why he doesn’t!Report
Again, I’m not a connoisseur of the super hero genre, but I agree with your husband. I’m not sure I fuly got how he changed sides, but he just seemed so cartoonish. And like Jaybird said, it lacked verisimilitude.
I really like the Bill Bixby Hulk. Or rather, I like its potential. There was some real potential for introspection. Too bad that most episodes were too formulaic. In the standard episode, uou can almost predict each of the (precisely two) times that Banner turns into the Hulk by looking at how far into the hour you’re at. And in my view, it would have been better if the Hulk actually hurt people, in the “doesn’t know his own strength and now he/Banner regrets it” sort of way. Instead, the Hulk only attacks bad guys, and when he does, he’ll through them onto a pile of hay or something. (Of course, as I 8 year old or whatever, I liked the show because I was 8 years old or whatever.)Report
“And in my view, it would have been better if the Hulk actually hurt people, in the “doesn’t know his own strength and now he/Banner regrets it” sort of way”
The comic actually addressed this. I think it was some time after World War Hulk. The reason Hulk only hurts bad guys is because, deep down, he still has Bruce Banner’s superintelligence to nudge him in the right direction.Report
That makes a certain amount of sense. But even intelligence misfires or miscalculates.Report
In the comic, the Hulk knocks down buildings and gets in city smashing fights with people his equal who don’t care about normals. The Hulk doesn’t have the senses to tell if there are people around, and if he’s angry he wouldn’t care. He mostly doesn’t pull the “let’s drag this fight somewhere else” card. Some of his standard moves look a lot like 9+ Earthquakes and he’s been show to use these in cities.
And all that is on a good day with everything working for him. On a bad day he’s subject to mind control and temper tantrums. Many characters have talked about the destruction he brings (see also 9+ Earthquakes and knocking down buildings) but weirdly these buildings must always be empty.
He should be the poster child for “why having supers around is a bad thing” and be leaving lots of corpses around.Report
Incredible timing! Screen Rant just posted a Hulk (2003) pitch meeting on YouTube.Report
RE: How in the world can you write a bulletproof character well?
The problem isn’t the “bulletproof” part. The problem is Superman is omniscient because of his senses and a teleport because of his speed. These things were introduced because of lazy writing and now the character is hard to handle because he doesn’t need to deal with real physics or real people.
The first Starbrand series has a good take on this. Infinitely strong, but can’t pick up a ship because it’d fall apart. Infinitely fast via flight (but can’t think faster). Infinitely tough. Has a nuke for an energy blast… which is scary not helpful if you’re a good guy who doesn’t want to murder cities.
Lost a fight with three villains, they get away… and now what? He doesn’t know their names, he has NO WAY to find them again for a rematch. Hears of a villain fight on the radio but can’t get there because navigation is a problem and he’d get fired if he left work. He can’t do the coal into diamonds thing because real physics.
He doesn’t want to join the authorities because they’d use him and he doesn’t trust them.
Big picture he either needs to go public and use the authorities resources (getting rich is trivial if you do that which would solve one set of problems at the cost of creating others) or he needs to establish relations with the authorities (a Bat Signal) to they can contact him when a Starbrand level threat shows up in Russia. The odds of that threat showing up in Pittsburg are very low.
A current book series that handles this pretty well is “Wearing the Cape”. The main heroine is effectively public and always has been. There are a ton of social adaptations to deal with capes being human and everyone else not being dumb.Report
My theory is that men and women of virtue tend to come across as kind of square. For Clark Kent/Superman, being kind of square was part of his charm. It isn’t so much for many other people of virtue.Report
This is a mystery to me because I prefer square, nerdish dweebs and would literally never go out with the “bad boys” that all women supposedly want, nor would I go for a “Chad”.
I also see a fair number of Hollywood sex symbols who fall into the nerdish square category.Report
This isn’t about bad boys and girls per se when it comes to romance. This really isn’t about sex or romance at all because a lot of heterosexual men don’t like their male heroes square and a lot heterosexual women don’t like their female heroes square. People want to live vicariously through superheroes. A non-square hero or heroine is a lot more fun for people to imagine themselves then somebody who never has a hedonistic urge. Being Bruce Wayne/Batman is going to be a lot more interesting than stable middle class Clark Kent/Superman.Report
Eh, the “Clark loves Lois, Lois loves Superman, Superman is really Clark” triangle is one hell of a story device.
That was worth a *LOT* of mileage.
If I had to guess, I’d say that Superman is only really particularly corny in a post-Reagan world.Report
I always thought that the best interpretation (which I’ve quoted before) was “There is no Superman/Clark Kent distinction, because Superman is just Clark Kent with superpowers.”
That was what I thought “Man of Steel” was striving towards, was an exploration of that idea; and I think it just didn’t manage to get there because, like a Godzilla movie, it thought that we needed to spend more time with the supporting cast than with the character the movie was supposed to be about. Like, there’s the conversation between Pa and Clark, and Clark says “so, what, all those kids should’ve died?” and I so, so badly wanted Pa to say “no! But…maybe it can’t be Clark Kent who saves them. Because once you’re the person that saves people, you can never not be that person, ever again.”Report
Well, what are we trying to do with the story?
A will-they-or-won’t-they love story about a nice guy who, secretly, is everything the girl he loves ever wanted?
And opportunity to show someone flying and punching a fighter jet and knocking it out while the pilot safely parachutes away to be captured by the proper authorities?
An apologia for God?
It’s real easy to do those first two. The last one ain’t never gonna satisfy everybody and it’s hard to imagine an anybody who will be satisfied for any given answer for more than a couple of months.Report
I’m only an occasional consumer of superhero fare, so maybe I’m either missing the point or just don’t know enough (both of those are likely), but it seems to me that the first Superman movie*, we do have Superman making a difficult choice. He has to decide whether to honor his word and save Hackensack or save Lois and California. He can’t do both, and in order to undo that decision, he has to violate the rule about not reversing the course of time.
Of course, the fact that he *can* reverse the course of time strikes me as a little deus ex machina’ish. Also too: The audience, or at least me, didn’t seem to realize that if Superman didn’t have the dilemma, he’d still have to sacrifice someone/someplace (Hackensack) for Lois/California.
*I think it was the first. I’m referring to the first with Christopher Reeves.
ETA: By the way, I like your idea of the superhero having to know and balance when not to use their powers. It would be interesting to see that conflict in, say, the context of a war or some other horrible event.Report
It would be interesting to see that conflict in, say, the context of a war or some other horrible event.
IIRC this is (sort of) the plot of the Watchmen.Report
I’ve never seen it. Do you recommend it?Report
If you feel like turning your brain off and enjoying the light show it is as good as anything of its type. Bonus points for lots of Malin Akerman sexiness but it won’t give you a new perspective on life or anything. For context this is probably the best super hero film endorsement I could muster for any of them other than maybe the Tim Burton Batman movies.Report
I would recommend the movie only if you say something like “I’m not inclined to read the book.”
The book is amazing. It explores themes with parallel stories and the written word has subtleties that the movie turns into either sledgehammers or excises completely.
But if you say “Yeah, I ain’t gonna read the book”, the movie is a noble failure and it’s got some pretty decent moments in it.
(If you read the book, you’ll find yourself asking “how in the hell did they make this into a movie?!?!?” and then you’ll watch it and say “oh” in a mildly disappointed voice.)
Warning: The movie is a hard R. It’s not a kiddie book that they made into a movie. Graphic violence, nudity, sex, tobacco use… it’s got it all.Report
That’s a good point, definitely not one to watch with the kids.Report
I got the long version because I was curious what Snyder would do with the comic-book-within-a-comic-book pirates material. The answer is “nothing”; it lies in the middle of the film like an undigested lump.Report
IDK, that worked for me. I felt like it was making a point about the nature of violence that people would have (and did) miss(ed) just from the comic book action.Report
I thought it worked really well in the book. (Superheroes are real, so comic books would be about something else.) And the animated pirate comic is fine as a standalone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDUidO8rzI) . But I didn’t see any real effort to integrate it into the film.Report
The thing that is tough about the book is that it asks questions which are very much of their time, and they’ve kind of been answered by the progression of history since then.
Like, it’s really important that the book has Nixon still President in the 1980s, that’s not just a throwaway gag but an exploration of the idea that Carter was a weird blip in America’s long evolution into a hard-right plutocracy. It’s similarly important that we almost never see a military deployment in the book; with Dr. Manhattan running around, who needs an army?
And the whole theme is kind of that; “with every state possessing nuclear weapons and the hard-right winning America, what’s the point of fighting for truth and justice, what’s the use of struggling for a better world? What do “bad guys” and “good guys” even mean?“Report
Yeah, The Comedian makes sense if you see the CIA/FBI as a Dark Force.
If you see the CIA/FBI as part of the Deep State standing in opposition to Drumpf, how would you have The Comedian respond to a question about supporting the government?Report
I think that the Comedian is a character who wouldn’t exist today, because the way the 1990s and 2000s turned out, Ozymandias *won*, and the world we’re living in is the one where the Squid Ending happened. For us, that was 9/11.)
And you might say “wait, 9/11 only united us for about five minutes before it all fell apart, and the war it started didn’t solve a damn thing”, and the thing is, Alan Moore didn’t think that the Squid Ending was good. That’s why the comic ends with the weirdo-zine guys getting Rohrshach’s journal in the mail, because it’s showing that Ozymandias’s plan is merely going to kick the status-quo along for another couple of decades. (And Dr Manhattan leaving the planet was a metaphor for how nuclear weapons were powerful but had been around for so long that everyone had got used to them and they lost the terrible symbolic meaning that they’d once possessed, making them ultimately irrelevant.)Report
Thanks for all your advice.Report
Watch the Directors Cut, which is very long but worth it. Better yet, read the book, you won’t be sorry.
(edited to add, should have read everyone’s comments first!)Report
Definitely read the book. It’s an entertaining and thought-provoking novel.Report
The first Superman (and the second for that matter) I think get it pretty close to what exists inside my head as “the right” way to do it.
There are other examples – the first X-Men is quite good with the exception of the canned ending, the first 2/3 of Captain America, heck, even the first Michael Keaton Batman hints at it. It’s mostly the recent incarnations that have me feeling things are headed in the wrong direction.Report
Re: hero knowing when to use and not to use his powers…
see also: the episode of Futurama where Bender becomes God of his own tiny colonyReport
I love Futurama!Report
I gave up on Superman when I was about ten for the same reasons that I gave up on religion. Super strong, super senses, super science — he could build robots that had similar powers — so why are there still nuclear weapons? Why didn’t he just send a couple of the robots out every Thursday at 3:30 in the afternoon to collect the bombs and toss them into the sun? Why are we still burning coal for electricity instead of using whatever power source the robots have? No vaccine for the common cold this month again?
Certainly there was a time when I would have said, if asked, “You know, Superman is a really sh*tty person: so much that is unequivocally good that he could do, but he doesn’t. Instead he mopes around in disguise trying to impress Lois Lane and writing (presumably bad, because he never got assigned any of the good stories) prose for a newspaper.Report
IIRC, Watchman touched on that with Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan, in that they, at the start, tried to advance human society through science, but eventually became jaded and detached.
Or maybe I’m remembering it wrong and need to read the book again.Report
The Boys handles this in an interesting fashion where the superheroes are run by corporations so they’re really limited in what they’re allowed to do based on what is good for the corporations.Report
Your second paragraph here is exactly the thing I would explore if I ever got a crack at the Man of Steel. That’s the key to it.Report
The issue is less that it’s impossible to have good stories with Superman as it is that Superman, correctly done with his known personality, would change things so their world wouldn’t be a mirror of our own.
For example in the Watcher’s Universe, the US won the Vietnam War because the President asked Dr. Manhattan to win the war. After that you don’t have things like Gulf War 1 & 2 because the US can and will play the “Dr. Manhattan wins” card and everyone knows it.
This leads to it’s own set of problems which are arguably worse, i.e. a good story.
Trying to make a story about Dr. Manhattan both stepping in to save things and not stepping in to save things and you have a mess.Report
Astro City had an interesting take on the Superman-type character. He is superpowerful, but there are only 24 hours in a day, so he has to figure out how to best allocate his time to do the most good, knowing he cannot save everybody. He also has to maintain his newspaper job. I think there was only one issue that was dedicated to the character, and in other issues he just appeared as a supporting character (sound familiar @jaybird?).Report
Yes! And in that one issue dedicated to him, it covered that he still needed to do stuff like “sleep every night” and, when he slept, he dreamed of flying.
Because he *LOVES* flying.
But he only gets to fly when he’s going from Point A to Point B between obligations and crises. A day when he spends 6 minutes in the air, total, is a good day flying.Report
Why is it so hard to write a good guy?
Well. The secret is that everybody in the story is a good guy. You know that old joke about “Thug Number Three, standing in the back corner, has no lines? That guy thinks he’s the main character”, well, same goes for being the good guy (or at least the righteous moral protagonist who deserves to win.)
Just like every decision is rational, nobody thinks they’re the bad guy. They just think that there are different ways of being “good”, is all.
Which is why it seems so hard to write a good guy. Because nobody wants to see a wish-fulfillment story about the thing they figure they do every day. “oh look, here’s this guy making the right choices and being justly rewarded, where’s the fun in that?” The whole point of fantasy is to revel in the idea that you might not be a good guy, that you might not make the morally-correct choice, and that you might not be punished if you do that.Report
I missed this at the time Density but YES. Maybe that’s why people love an anti-hero, we’d all love to be that person who goes through life telling everyone to eff off LOLReport
This piece explained a lot better than I could why you can tell an incredibly rich story with a Lawfool Good character. Want to make a good story with a Paladin? Have the Paladin forced to choose between rescuing the civilians or letting the orc warboss (who will go on to wreck more carnage) escape. Or have the Paladin eventually come to grips with the fact that something he did several months ago in game time actually had bad effects. Or have him forced to deal with the forces of public order being the good guys but making a bad choice and stymying him.
(Hmm… This comment turned into me praising my favorite DM ever. But so it goes.)Report
Thanks for reading!Report