I just snorted my espresso through my nostrils.
Is Daredevil Closer to a "costumed hero" or a "superhero"
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
I just snorted my espresso through my nostrils.
Personally, I think if someone is a superhero is determined more by the type of stories told about them, than the character themselves. Do they use a secret identity to go on larger than life, over the top adventures involving people with superpowers and/or over the top personas? Then they are a superhero.
Batman also has technological help that gives him some unnatural advantages. How do you propose to factor that in?
Absolutely. That's a bizarrely narrow definition, considering that invulnerability is just one of many superpowers, and if anything, the majority of superheroes do not possess it. Heck, even Wonder Woman can be hurt by a bullet (at least superficially), which is why she needs the bracelets. The Flash can be shot if he doesn't dodge in time. Spider-Man can certainly be shot or take a pounding, as can Daredevil. I daresay at least two of the Fantastic Four are vulnerable to bullets; so are most of the X-Men. Captain America can be shot, as can Ant-Man or the Wasp or many others.
Lots of superheroes don't have secret identities; it's a much more common trope for DC characters than Marvel ones. This isn't something you can reduce to specific individual traits. Like I've been saying, it's more a gestalt thing. "Superhero" is a label that encompasses many different kinds of crimefighter and do-gooder.
^^^If the "help" is a gun, then he's not a superhero. Yes, there's the formal admission that some superheroes can be "shot." But if they can go out to gunfight after gunfight without needing to bring a gun, they have the power to not be shot. And that makes them superheroes.
But if you disagree, no problem. It's not like any of us get to demand payment for the use of the term "superhero."
But if you disagree, no problem. It's not like any of us get to demand payment for the use of the term "superhero."
Sorry, missed this before. This is a qualifier, not a disqualifier. My proposed standard includes Batman and Green Arrow. If anything, it's too broad.
There is no single verbal or visual convention in superhero comics and TV/movies I can think of. This slight concession to reality I suggest is sufficient to separate regular heroes (costumed or not) from super-heroes. Antiheroes are a separate question.
PS "The power not to get shot is not" is not a synonym for invulnerability. This power is commonly an unrationalized fact, a simple presumption that explains why the superhero is carrying concealed.
Anti-heroes like the Punisher who operate in superheroic worlds are just a different flavor of superheroes. They're part of the same overall genre. Whatever label you want to put on the Punisher, he first appeared in the pages of The Amazing Spider-Man, working with Spidey's foe the Jackal--He's part of the superhero genre.
Why guns? Why not arrows, swords and claws? All are lethal weapons. Heck, the Human Torch is a lethal weapon.^^^If the "help" is a gun, then he's not a superhero. Yes, there's the formal admission that some superheroes can be "shot." But if they can go out to gunfight after gunfight without needing to bring a gun, they have the power to not be shot. And that makes them superheroes.
But if you disagree, no problem. It's not like any of us get to demand payment for the use of the term "superhero."
Err, yeah, the villain part of the genre. Like you said, he worked with Spidey's foe.
But he was also teaming up with Spidey practically every week back in the nineties.
At a time when Spidey was an outlaw who was wanted by the authorities, if you want to split hairs. And it was the Jackal's first appearance, so Punisher didn't know his true agenda.
Doesn't matter anyway...whichever side they're on or methods they use, they're all part of the same genre.
I would call that being well equipped. I'll except Batman as a superhero because he did take on Darkseid, but can't anyone become Batman? I wouldn't call Punisher a superhero because anyone could pick up a gun, nor would I call Green Arrow or Hawkeye superheroes. If it comes down to skill sets and gear, aren't there superheroes in everyone?
Last edited:
Well, I would argue personality and training are not irrelevant factors.
BTW, you didn't really give a clear answer. I take it that just having technological help makes you "well-equipped" rather than a superhero?
BTW, you didn't really give a clear answer. I take it that just having technological help makes you "well-equipped" rather than a superhero?
Daredevil has a superpower and peak-human physical ability. He goes by a nickname, has a secret(ish) identity, wears colorful tights with a themed cowl and his initials on the chest, and uses a specialized gadget/weapon. He operates as a crimefighter and gets into larger-than-life battles with supervillains. He has been a member of the Defenders and the New Avengers, he frequently teams up with Spider-Man, and he used to date Black Widow. In his recent adventures, he's been taking on villains from the Spot to the Mole Man to AIM to Doctor Doom. There is no way in which he does not meet the definition of a superhero.
Green Arrow and Hawkeye are Batman with the utility belt transferred to arrows. Both have taken on their fair share of aliens, gods and monsters.
Taking that gear and skill set to fight crime and forging different identity using a costume and code name is whats them superheroes.
Similar threads
