Is Daredevil Closer to a "costumed hero" or a "superhero"

[Nerys Myk]

That's because Mrs. Peel is a spy. She uses the skill set in different genre.

Somerset Maugham and Eric Ambler are spinning in their graves.
And John LeCarre is probably desperately sticking a nitroglycerin tablet under his tongue. Alan Furst and Edward Wilson are no doubt swigging Pepto-Bismol. Seriously, the movie Romanoff has Mrs. Peel DNA.

The thing is, characters like The Four Horsemen in Now You See Me don't have any skills or character any different from superheroes. It's just that their fictional universe doesn't make it plain that they are so super they don't need guns like us ordinary mortals. This thread can't settle on the differences between superheroes and regular heroes or costumed heroes because it keeps trying to limit the discussion to superheroes.

Thinking about it, maybe the toughest case is Allan Quatermain. I don't think anyone will accept him as a superhero, even though in the end he apparently had a superpower! I suppose Quatermain's most popular descendant would be Doc Savage and he's not a superhero either.

The Movie Romanoff is based on the comic Romanoff who takes her current look from Mrs Peel, but the character predates the first appearance of Mrs Peel on TV. Her DNA includes the femme fatale type who influenced her original look, the Black Canary who influenced her super-villain costume and Mrs. Peel who influenced her super-hero costume. Super-heroes have all sorts of DNA: from the pulps, from espionage thrillers, from science fiction, from mythology, from comic strips and other sources. Is a genre that's always looking for more, too.

Quatermain and Savage are adventurers and they contributed to super-hero DNA too. Quatermain is a jungle adventurer who's DNA can be found in characters like Tarzan, Jungle Jim and Indiana Jones. Savage is more of crime-fighter who's DNA can be found in Batman, Superman and the Fantastic Four.

What was Quatermain superpower?

Didn't see Now You See Me, so the relevance of the reference is lost on me. It's a heist film with magicians, right?

 

[stj]

I knew Mrs. Peel before I knew Romanoff, which has a powerful effect on how I see Black Widow.

Yes, Now You See Me is the magicians' caper movie. There is a scene where the Dave Franco character uses his magician skills to fight off the cops. In the scene the character displays exactly the same type of skills a Batman is supposed to have to "justify" his ability to mix it up and never get shot. Naturally no one ever thought they were watching a superhero movie, not even a stealth one.

Quatermain somewhere around She and Quatermain I think it was (yes a mashup of Haggard's most popular characters,) it came out that Quatermain was immortal. At least in Africa. I think League of Extraordinary Gentlemen referred to it, but, taking Quatermain out of Africa sort of castrated the character. Which I hope was the point of League of Extraordinary Gentlement, since the book was otherwise inexplicable.

Since all these characters survive in the timeless world of the imagination, and since there are so many of them, rough categories like heroes and superheroes are a little more useful for thinking and discussion than genealogies and dates. Or so I think.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I knew Mrs. Peel before I knew Romanoff, which has a powerful effect on how I see Black Widow.

Yes, Now You See Me is the magicians' caper movie. There is a scene where the Dave Franco character uses his magician skills to fight off the cops. In the scene the character displays exactly the same type of skills a Batman is supposed to have to "justify" his ability to mix it up and never get shot. Naturally no one ever thought they were watching a superhero movie, not even a stealth one.

Quatermain somewhere around She and Quatermain I think it was (yes a mashup of Haggard's most popular characters,) it came out that Quatermain was immortal. At least in Africa. I think League of Extraordinary Gentlemen referred to it, but, taking Quatermain out of Africa sort of castrated the character. Which I hope was the point of League of Extraordinary Gentlement, since the book was otherwise inexplicable.

Since all these characters survive in the timeless world of the imagination, and since there are so many of them, rough categories like heroes and superheroes are a little more useful for thinking and discussion than genealogies and dates. Or so I think.

Doesn't Quatermain die in the last book, while in Africa? (wiki says yes and so does Haggard) The real comic book Mrs. Peel was Wonder Woman in her Diana Prince phase. Her partner even wore a bowler.

So what exactly does Franco do to throw off the aim of these cops? With Batman its the costume and cape. (supposedly) Though mostly its the need of the plot for Batman not to get shot. He'll get shot if the plot demands it. ( Just like any fictional hero) So,its not really a power. Batman doesn't go into a fight thinking to turn on his Bat-anti-bullet screen.

Superhero is just a subset of hero. There are antecedents and related subsets. One can retroactively apply the term to demigods, adventurers and legends if they like, but the fully formed super hero is a twentieth century creation.

 

[Christopher]

What was Quatermain superpower?

Getting everyone to mispronounce his name? I get so tired of hearing him called "Quartermain" in movies.

 

[stj]

My memory is pretty good but fortyfive years is pushing it. I've evidently confused my memory of the reincarnation novels with Quatermain (only dipped into because I didn't like them) with immortality. I tried to remember what The Ice Gods were all about and discovered nothing but the title was left. And now I find I'm blending those vague memories with the paper and film versions from League.

As to Franco, playing cards and flash paper are part of it. Best to see. for yourself.

 

[Silvercrest]

The Lone Ranger used a gun, so isn't a superhero.

The gun (or period equivalent) is a good practical demarcation separating the "super" heroes from the others.

Speaking of guns and early heroes that may or may not be superheroes, how about The Shadow? He isn't an antihero like Punisher, clearly. Maybe an ante hero, though Thoughts?

The Shadow is indeed a hero and he is a hero with a superpower. Yet he isn't regarded as a superhero. I'd say the gun rule holds up very well in this test case.

But the remarks on Batman using guns reminds me that the gun rule may also work not just as a touchstone to identify "super" despite the absence of an official in-universe superpower. The absence of guns has been impelled by a distaste for showing murders to children as entertainment, i.e., a moral code.

There's still an exception to all that, though: The Phantom. He's a comics character, he's regarded as a superhero, he's a do-gooder, he has the skin-tights, he has the secret identity ... and he uses guns. He can get away with it because Lee Falk decreed that the guns were only ever used to shoot villains' guns out of their hands. (Not just in "nonlethal" fashion, but specifically for that purpose. ) So, if you have the guns and still keep the moral code, what does that mean?

I'd say it means the gun rule is a good guideline, but it's still not absolute.

Unless. .. can anyone make the case that The Ghost Who Walks is not really a superhero?

PS "Ante-hero" is great.

If Johnny Storm ever has a kid, Sue will be an Auntie Hero.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Phantom might be the first character that put together the tropes that help define superheroes.

 

[Christopher]

The Phantom might be the first character that put together the tropes that help define superheroes.

Well, all but one of the tropes, since the Phantom has no superpowers.

 

[stj]

There's still an exception to all that, though: The Phantom.

I was shocked at how well the gun rule worked. But you're right, it doesn't work for the Phantom who is indeed a superhero. His superpower is that his gun never kills, not even accidentally, even if it's not officially acknowledged.

If Johnny Storm ever has a kid, Sue will be an Auntie Hero.

 

[Silvercrest]

It may be that the Phantom is the only exception.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

What about Star-Lord?

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm not that familiar with the character, but looking online it appears his weapons are less like firearms and more like "futuristic zap guns." I imagine that stj's gun rule was supposed to mean firearms that are native and contemporary.

On second thought, now I'm wondering. One of the points of excluding guns was to imply or convey distaste for showing murders to children. So how do we really mean "gun"? Is it defined as:

1) a contemporary firearm? (which would have the most emotional impact when you see someone getting blown away with it)

Result: Allows Star-Lord. Disallows any other gun-wielder mentioned so far with the sole exception of the Phantom.

2) any powered, manually-aimed weapon that you blow people away with, including futuristic zap guns? (still emotional impact if someone gets shot with it, but it's less "real-world" and more hypothetical)

Result: Disallows Star-Lord, Rocket Raccoon, Nikki from the original Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Steel, Blue Beetle (Ted used a compressed-air gun). Maybe the original Sandman. Most of these are popularly classed as superheroes, so this becomes problematic. I was going to add Paladin from Marvel, but I'm not sure he's exactly a "hero" anyway.

3) just anything that you can point and shoot?

Result: Disallows everyone above, plus Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Batman (grappling gun), and Green Lantern! Clearly this definition doesn't work well.


Yes, it's a highly arbitrary distinction, but so is the entire discussion.

 

[stj]

The gun rule means the standard contemporary weapon, which grandfathers in swords and arrows for past periods, while excluding swords/arrows today. The gun rule is a dual marker for de facto superpowers and moral code, which is why it works pretty well. From what I see in Wikipedia, Star-Lord's "gun" is not our standard contemporary weapon.

But the real use of the gun rule is quickly and easily identifying the differences between pulp heroes like Doc Savage or Zorro, from superheroes. Not in separating costumed heroes from superheroes. I'm not even sure there are enough costumed heroes to make it useful to categorize them separately.

 

[Silvercrest]

Right, I'm not even on that subject anymore. (Apologies to the OP.) I'm just trying to narrow down what makes up our perception of a super-hero. So, a working definition would have to include:

1) the character originates in comic books
2) the character is primarily action-based, but follows a code of ethics that limits his use of overt violence
3) the character's overall motivations are altruistic and his results are generally positive
4) the character is not dependent on the use of standard contemporary weapons
even though he may carry them (this explains how the Phantom can fit)
5) the character possesses skills or abilities (without using standard contemporary weapons) that make him the equal or superior of antagonists who do use such weapons; this can extend to "the unofficial power not to get hit", if nothing else

These five elements are common to every character that is currently referred to as a super-hero. I can't think of any other elements that are. There are other elements such as codenames, costumes, heroic physiques, secret identities, and superhuman powers, but obviously we can all name acknowledged super-heroes who don't have these things. They're optional.

So I'd say that a character who meets my five criteria above is probably classifiable as a super-hero. If he meets the five criteria and also has some of those optional elements, he is almost certainly a super-hero. If he meets some of the five and also incorporates some of the options, then he is not. He's probably a related concept like a pulp hero or anti-hero. (If he doesn't meet any of the five requirements, but incorporates all the optional elements, then he's either a cosplayer or a super-villain!)

Does that definition work? Can anyone find any holes in it or any required elements on top of the five?

Oh, and Christopher, this definition isn't intended to set limits on the concept or term
"super-hero". And I really don't feel like splitting hairs to decide who's a super-hero and who's just a "masked avenger." I'm merely trying to draw chalk lines around an existing concept to figure out what delineates it from similar existing concepts.

If my definition leaves out someone who obviously should be included, then I wouldn't exclude him; I'd rethink the definition.

As I said in my last post, this is all highly arbitrary -- but still a good exercise. It's following some related comments that CorporalCaptain made a few pages back.

 

[stj]

#2&3 spell out good grounds for classification as a hero, and #4&5 spell out good ground for classification as super. ("Unofficial power not to get hit" is particularly nice phrasing.) But I'm not sure that #1 doesn't isn't even more accurate and even simpler than the gun rule. Offhand I can't think of a single character that's regarded as a superhero who didn't come from the comics.

Flash Gordon and Adam Strange? (I think Flash was comics first, right?) Magnus the robot fighter definitely had the unofficial power.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Flash Gordon and Adam Strange are both Science Fiction heroes in the vein of John Carter. Flash started in a comic strip.

 

[Christopher]

Right, I'm not even on that subject anymore. (Apologies to the OP.) I'm just trying to narrow down what makes up our perception of a super-hero. So, a working definition would have to include:

1) the character originates in comic books
2) the character is primarily action-based, but follows a code of ethics that limits his use of overt violence
3) the character's overall motivations are altruistic and his results are generally positive
4) the character is not dependent on the use of standard contemporary weapons
even though he may carry them (this explains how the Phantom can fit)
5) the character possesses skills or abilities (without using standard contemporary weapons) that make him the equal or superior of antagonists who do use such weapons; this can extend to "the unofficial power not to get hit", if nothing else

These five elements are common to every character that is currently referred to as a super-hero. I can't think of any other elements that are. There are other elements such as codenames, costumes, heroic physiques, secret identities, and superhuman powers, but obviously we can all name acknowledged super-heroes who don't have these things. They're optional.

I strongly dispute #1. The genre originated in comics, but that doesn't mean every superhero character originated in comics. There are a lot of superheroes that originated in film or television: RoboCop, the Incredibles, Captain Nice, Isis, Ralph Hinkley (The Greatest American Hero), Underdog, Darkwing Duck, Ben 10, etc. And these days there are quite a few superheroes original to prose fiction, such as the Green Blaze and her fellow Troubleshooters from my own Only Superhuman.

And yes, there are superheroes who use guns, though they're not favorites of mine. Indeed, every one of the five rules listed here has exceptions -- even #3, since we've seen superheroes who were just in it for fame and glory and babes, like Captain Amazing in Mystery Men and Captain Hammer in Doctor Horrible. Of course they weren't really heroes within their stories, but they played the role of superhero and were perceived that way by the public. Again, it's as much about perception and persona and social roles as it is about methods or powers.

 

[Silvercrest]

You're right, Christopher, I was just about to go back on #1 myself for related reasons. I would have changed it to "visual media" until you mentioned prose fiction. I don't have a problem dropping #1 altogether.

I would submit that my definition was aimed at the perception, persona, and social roles according to the real-world viewing audience, but not according to the characters' fictional worlds. I freely admit that I'm moving the goalposts; the intent is to move them to a spot that works. Like I said, I'm not trying to make something up. I'm trying to draw a chalk line around characters that are already perceived as superheroes to figure out what we mean by that term.

So: The Crimebuster-era characters were referred to as super-heroes within the context of "Watchmen", but I don't think they meet the definition because none of them were particularly heroic from our view (#2). Ditto with Captain Amazing. I haven't seen Dr. Horrible so can't comment. It's possible that there are examples out there which simply blow my definition to shreds.

If we can settle on a definition that incorporates the obvious characters, then we can decide if the more nebulous characters meet it.

If not — well, okay.

Like I said, this is arbitrary. And subjective. I also freely admit it may not be workable.

As to the gun thing: I can't name anyone who is unambiguously superheroic and still depends on the use of guns. Who have you got in mind?

("Unofficial power not to get hit" is particularly nice phrasing.)

Actually, it's yours. From a post in this thread on November 17 (on page 5, at least the way it's displayed for me).

 

[stj]

^^^My secret's out, I don't reread threads.

I'm pretty sure a distinction between comics (cartoons) and animation (moving cartoons) isn't important for these purposes.

More controversially, I rather suspect that including parody and satire is stretching genres way too far.

My interest was in how character without official superpowers could still be deemed as superheroes (as they are,) while other characters wtih many overlapping traits who can do the same kinds of things are not. As in, for example, why The Shadow, who has a super power, a distinctive costume, a secret identity and fights crime is still nonetheless not regarded as a superhero. Or, for another example, why Bill Bixby's The Magician is not deemed a superhero.

At this point, I'm still inclined to think the comic origin, amended to include the extremely closely related animated comic, is still the best single indicator, even better than the gun rule. Although to be honest I still only know of the Phantom as a character who doesn't have an official superpower but uses a gun, yet is still regarded as a superhero.

 

[Christopher]

Like I said, I'm not trying to make something up. I'm trying to draw a chalk line around characters that are already perceived as superheroes to figure out what we mean by that term.

But I don't think it's something where you can draw a line. It's not a sharp border, it's more of a fuzzy transition. Where would you define the border of a cloud?

If we can settle on a definition that incorporates the obvious characters, then we can decide if the more nebulous characters meet it.

If not — well, okay.

I don't think it would work that way. It's more an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing. Sometimes it's a matter of context. Zatanna is pretty definitely a superhero when she's part of the Justice League, but when she's in her own solo book dealing with supernatural phenomena, she's more of a mystical hero.

As to the gun thing: I can't name anyone who is unambiguously superheroic and still depends on the use of guns. Who have you got in mind?

I already mentioned RoboCop, a character who was deliberately created as a comics-style superhero, and who was treated as such to an extent in the live-action TV series. Captain America has used guns on occasion, and nobody would dispute that he's a superhero.