Bruce Wayne might have trained under Chiun for a time. 
Is Daredevil Closer to a "costumed hero" or a "superhero"
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
Thunderbolt Ross might qualify as a villain, but not a supervillain. As I've been saying, the terms superhero and supervillain refer to a specific category of methods, appearance, and style that differs from the norm in some way. Ross was a member of the US Air Force, an established institution. He worked within the system and employed USAF methods and resources, even if he often employed an exaggerated and sci-fi-ish version of such resources. Now, if he'd had some kind of specially designed armor suit and had adopted the nom de guerre Hulkbuster for his own personal use and gone out and battled the Hulk singlehandedly, then he would've qualified as a supervillain, but as it was, he was simply an antagonist.
Yeah, Ross is basically in the same category as the likes of Amanda Waller. They may often be supervillian adjacent, but they're not supervillians in their own right. They're not even always villians so much as antagonists.
On that note I'd also say Nick Fury isn't a superhero. He's a super spy. There's a subtle difference.
As for Daredevil, I'd place him with the likes of Black Canary who may have a (singular) super-power, but they've still had to train themselves to peak physical condition.
Not sure if it's been brought up already (haven't read through the whole thread) but where would one say Green Lantern falls into these (admittedly arbitrary) categories? I mean on the face of it, sure, on the power scale he's way up there with the likes of J'onn and Supes, but all of that is technology based.
Is a power ring just a *really* more technologically advanced utility belt? Then what about those that get their powers from magical items like Fate's helmet and Vixen's talisman? Surely in this context magic is just technology by another name?
Yeah, Ross is basically in the same category as the likes of Amanda Waller. They may often be supervillian adjacent, but they're not supervillians in their own right. They're not even always villians so much as antagonists.
On that note I'd also say Nick Fury isn't a superhero. He's a super spy. There's a subtle difference.
As for Daredevil, I'd place him with the likes of Black Canary who may have a (singular) super-power, but they've still had to train themselves to peak physical condition.
Not sure if it's been brought up already (haven't read through the whole thread) but where would one say Green Lantern falls into these (admittedly arbitrary) categories? I mean on the face of it, sure, on the power scale he's way up there with the likes of J'onn and Supes, but all of that is technology based.
Is a power ring just a *really* more technologically advanced utility belt? Then what about those that get their powers from magical items like Fate's helmet and Vixen's talisman? Surely in this context magic is just technology by another name?
I think that Green Lantern's ring is much like Tony Stark's suit, in that the characters themselves may still be smart and capable without them, but they wouldn't be superheroes.
There's an important difference between Green Lantern and Iron Man, though. The ring chose Hal, so that's a reflection on Jordan's character. Presumably, Hal has that same character irrespective whether he has the ring. There's no corresponding qualification for Tony Stark, since (AFAIK) he didn't passed through a magical good-guy detection field as a condition for donning the suit.
Eh. Half of one, 50% of the other. I'm just talking power sets, not morality.
Having said that I think Tony Starke not using the suit for evil is a pretty good qualifier for not being evil. The ring just comes with a (sometimes faulty) jerk detector than the Iron Man Suit or Batman's utility belt.
Having said that I think Tony Starke not using the suit for evil is a pretty good qualifier for not being evil. The ring just comes with a (sometimes faulty) jerk detector than the Iron Man Suit or Batman's utility belt.
Of course the power ring is "just" super-advanced technology.
With respect to limiting your attention to the power sets alone, it's a given that if you filter out every distinction between A and B, then A and B are exactly the same.
My point was that there is more to Green Lantern than just his power set. Morality is a key element of his "mythology", since he is an intergalactic policeman in a supposedly benevolent corps.
In no way am I saying that Tony Stark is immoral. It's just that questions of morality enter his mythology at different points and in different ways.
I think all this is doing is showing how stupid these distinctions are.
So, I guess you're not a fan of Green Lantern?
^I think Alidar probably means that it's pointless to try to parse some detail-level definition of what is or isn't a superhero. It's more of an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing. Superheroes are an extremely diverse bunch, and the genre overlaps with plenty of other genres.
Yeah. There's no way Green Lantern isn't a superhero just because his power is a magical ring that's technically "technology." If that's your definition, reevaluate your definition. The ring choosing the character is weak as well. That's just saying that they have qualities that make them superheroes and a magic ring recognized that. Failure to have a magic ring shouldn't disqualify you (so Tony Stark is Iron Man is a superhero regardless of how many rings he doesn't own).
^ Oh, no. I wasn't saying that what makes a superhero is that he must be chosen by a higher power. I already gave my definition of superhero upthread, with the qualification that it's probably wrong, in my post that mentions je ne sais quoi.
All I was doing there was simply pointing out that (at least IMO) the power suit trope doesn't fully capture what GL in particular is all about. GL and IM are not precisely cut from the same mold is all I was saying.
I thought AJ was saying that the distinction between the two isn't important or interesting, to which I'd have to certainly disagree, as the distinction isn't stupid. Both are superheroes, similar in some ways, but subtly distinct in others.
It would be stupid to use traits like selected by a higher power as a yardstick for deciding superheroism, though. Apologies if I misunderstood.
All I was doing there was simply pointing out that (at least IMO) the power suit trope doesn't fully capture what GL in particular is all about. GL and IM are not precisely cut from the same mold is all I was saying.
I thought AJ was saying that the distinction between the two isn't important or interesting, to which I'd have to certainly disagree, as the distinction isn't stupid. Both are superheroes, similar in some ways, but subtly distinct in others.
It would be stupid to use traits like selected by a higher power as a yardstick for deciding superheroism, though. Apologies if I misunderstood.
I would qualify the likes of JJJ and Thunderbolt Ross as "supporting antagonists", if that's not an oxymoron.
Dude, you just got as close to a concession as you're going to get from me. Sore winner much? This is over...anything else I'd have to say to you at this point would be a violation of board rules.
Yeah, I think you misunderstood. I actually agreed with your argument that superheroes have a je ne sais quois that distinguishes them. My point was trying to distinguish two groups that have this je ne sais quois based on having superpowers or not and only calling the latter "costumed heroes" is an arbitrary and stupid distinction that is hard to apply once you start having to exclude Batman, Iron Man, Green Lantern, etc. from the list.
Nick Fury isn't a superhero. He a soldier and spy. That's why he starred in a war comic and an espionage comic.
That's right. It's worth remembering that not all comic-book heroes are superheroes. Comics encompass more genres than that. Marvel's universe evolved from a line of horror, science fiction, military, and romance comics, so it's always had a bunch of different genres in its makeup. The Hulk is obviously a monster story; the Fantastic Four started out as much the same and didn't don costumes and fight supervillains until issue 3. I read an observation recently that even Spider-Man's debut would've read much like a horror comic if it had been a standalone story -- protagonist gains a paranormal power, abuses it, and pays a shocking price for his hubris. True, most of Marvel's comics ended up following more of a superhero formula -- even romance-comic heroine Patsy Walker eventually became the superheroine Hellcat -- but there's always been more to the MU than just superheroes. And DC's also had its share of Western, sci-fi, romance, etc. comics.
Nick Fury may not be a superhero but I would consider him a superspy or some kind of super title. He not only commands the most high tech weaponry and arsenals (some made by Tony), he has access to all information, all the supervillans items they contained from past battles, he has the Avengers (X-men and Fantastic 4 too) backing him up, and battled alien invaders (though I think S.W.O.R.D. took that over). He may have starred in war comics and espionage comics, but he came a long way. He not your average Colonel. Supercolonel maybe?
(People who have to insult at the end of thier "concessions" are Trolls The Old Mixer. I still frustrated with you from your attitude in your previous posts and you expect me not to respond to additional insults?)
(People who have to insult at the end of thier "concessions" are Trolls The Old Mixer. I still frustrated with you from your attitude in your previous posts and you expect me not to respond to additional insults?)
I think there's a big difference between Batman and Green Lantern. Just because GL's powers aren't "natural" or "inherent" and are instead a result of an external object doesn't mean that they aren't superpowers. Batman is a different story-while he's written ti often be able to do ridiculous things that aren't "realistic," he doesn't form giant boxing gloves with his mind or shoot energy beams from his hand or something like that.
It's no sillier a distinction than in any kind of genre, like between mythological creatures such as werewolves or vampires. Just because they're both fictional doesn't mean there's not a distinction.
Similar threads
