What do you feel is the criteria for bestowing the title of SUPERHERO upon a person?
Personally, I feel that a person must posess a SUPERHUMAN, or an ability beyond that of the common human, that is natural. It is not that of a something that is manmade.
IE, Batman is not a superhero, Ironman is not a superhero, and Green Latern as well.
They have that extra edge of being regular people, so they are easier to relate to, but are not unique in the same sense as Cyclops, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Spawn, etc. are.
They are regular people who decided to take the law into their own hands. People like Punisher.
As said in other threads...would you be a superhero if you would have power to change colours of flowers? Batman is a superhero. Green Latern is a superhero. And Iron Man is a superhero. Get it already.
So is the Martian Manhunter a superhero? After all, he doesn't possess any special powers--just the boring old powers that every Martian possess (although I understand that he is unusually formidable, even for a Martian).
Suppose that, by and act of God, Mars and the Martian race were restored, and the Martian Manhunter went back home. Would he still be a superhero then?
I don't like the idea that you can become a superhero, or somehow lose your superhero status, just by moving around the universe; it seems to me that this cheapens the whole idea of "superheroes."
Last edited by Gregory on Feb 29th, 2004 at 02:03 PM
Okay, first of all this is all my personal opinion, so if you want to be a jackass then do it in another thread. Thanks!
Anyways, I doubt that a person would want to fight crime if their hidden special power was changing a rose from red to green. I really don't think somebody like Dr. Octavius would cowar in fear at the sight of a persons ability to grow their fingernails at will.
I understand your point, but I personally feel that a person needs what is dubbed "powers" in order to classify themselves a 'Superhero.' Otherwise, I simply class them as 'crime fighter,' or 'vigilante.'
In regard to the alien status, I feel that being from another planet kind of cheapens the status of 'superHUMAN' abilities. They can be crime fighters all they like, all the more power to them if they feel so. But they are not 'Superheros'
but Eddie Brock is considerd a vigilante,yet he posse's super strength even without the symbiote((it boosted his strength signifacantly)) would you consider him a superhero? he realy dosent have power's unless he's Venom
i really think there's more to it, i mean just having power's dosent make the anyworse. they may not be "superhero's" by name
I agree wuth Rasta.That doesnt make sense.And you've basically at this point said that you don't regard batman and superman as superheros, even though they were the first superheros. No-one at any time has said superheros had to have super-HUMAN abilities. The term super-power is more accurate. and if you're limiting this to humans with powers, what about mutants then? they aren't technically humans. You've restrcited us to humans who've had accidents like:spiderman, daredevil, hulk, fantastic four. Thor?he's not human, he's a god.So what about him?
A Superhero is not confined to just having super powers, it's idiotic to suggest that Batman, Ironman etc are not superheroes, because they all in their own way have far better heroic qualities than Spiderman, the X-Men and Superheroes who actually have super powers.
Read your statement one more time and think about it hard.
The reason I think the way I do is because you are all hailing people like Batman, Ironman, Punisher, etc. in the fashion you are, but what about the police officers that do the same thing on a daily basis? The only difference between the Cops and your 'Crime Fighters;'
By the way, Lobo, I am not mocking you. I actually got a chuckle out of that.
That is the impression I am getting from all of those who are posting. However, if you all feel that I am being narrowminded, lets forget about what I say and get back on topic.
Okay, then. As we all know, Batman can see in the dark. It's not a superpower; he has some sort of infrared lens built into his suit. Suppose that, instead of using technology, he had some sort of mutant ability to see in the dark. That's definitely a super-power, it's definitely very relevant to the type of crime-fighting Batman does--but it's nothing he can't already do. So know he's a superhero, yes? Even though he doesn't have any powers he doesn't already have? Surely you see how arbitrary that distinction is?
There are a few reasons the Batman and his ilk are super-heroes and cops and soldiers don't qualify.
A "hero" is one who acts with heroic intent, whether conscious of his heroic intent or not. To be "super" is to be able to perform acts that most people in one's community cannot.
While many cops and many soldiers are heroes, you cannot assign the label "hero" to all of them. You can't prove they do what they do for love, money, power, or whatever else it gives them. Not only is there potentially personal gain to be had from such a job, but these people work for the government and ideally follow orders that do not necessarily come from their own beliefs and passions.
They are sanctioned to do what they do by the government that is charged with protecting the taxpayers. They aren't giving aid to the community, they are simply an official part of the machine.
Because of the tremendous number of police and military operatives in the world, and because the abilities they have are shared with so many of their peers, I have a hard time considering them "super." If they stand out in their group, that may be different, but the difference between an officer and a civilian does not constitute "super."
I don't consider the Punisher to be a super-hero. What he does, many real-life ex-military NRA-backing nut-cases who stay in shape can do. He may have the innocent in mind when killing his prey, but he's primarily driven by the hatred of criminals. He's an exterminator.
The Batman risks his life to save others. His "war on crime" is not a real war, unlike the Punisher's. The Batman takes prisoners and leaves no casualties. He lives by compassionate methods. He risks his life and his freedom, for he is not officially sanctioned to do what he does. Now that Commissioner Gordon is retired, he has no friendly arrangement with the police. He works by his own rules, under no authority, performing acts most athletes and law enforcement can't, and always acts as a hero. That's the definition, in my opinion.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
How many police officers do you know that when they were choosing their profession thought to themselves, "I think I will put myself in probable danger with drug lords, murderers and various other criminals because there is good money in it." I doubt that was their train of thought in such a decision.
They, more likely then not, did it for the reasons of 'protecting those who are in need.' The innocent, if you will. Much like your Batman.
All I am saying is that if you are going to classify Ironman, etc., the ranking of Superhero, what about the police? They have just the same in terms of motives, but they are lacking the finance to give themselves the edge that Batman, Ironman, etc. have.
Like I said, you cannot confirm any policeman's motives. They are real people, with no thought balloons to show you the truth that only they know. I'm not ragging on cops, I'm being realistic. I know that cops aren't paid well, but there are benefits that come with rank and retirement, and I was mainly thinking of dirty cops. Also, don't bother arguing with me when I tell you that the job attracts personalities within the full range that include "serial killer," "serial bully," and "hero." I study cops and criminals for a hobby and for school.
I considered being a cop myself, for "heroic reasons" I suppose, but I don't think I have what it takes cognitively and physically. I believe in having competent men and women doing the job.
Don't romanticize the job of police officer when analyzing its appeal or effects. It's many things to many people. It's just a job to some people, it's a way to be a bully or a protected criminal for others, and it's a calling for true heroes to some. The intent is nothing you can put a blanket statement on because we're talking about individuals.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
Because of the "super" part of superhero. As Herr Logan says, there's nothing extroidinary about them. No matter what their motives (and I'm a little less optimistic than you are about that; I suspect many people go into the police force because they want to be in a position of power), they're simply not good enough to be labled "super."
The way I see it,
Heroic motives and actions = hero
Exceptional abilities = super
Heroic motives and actions + exceptional abilities = superhero.
What I am saying is how can you say that any cop, be it man or woman, is not entitled to be deemed a superhero if they are just the same as Batman, minus the cape and cool car? I cannot see the logic in that thinking.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 29th, 2004 02:57 AM
