What makes a Superhero a Superhero

Originally posted by Lobo
Batman, even without the technology is still the worlds greatest detective and a master of the martial arts. That has to count for something.

It does, but that is part of the reason that I started this thread.

What is the criteria of classifying somebody a crime fighter?

Is it sheer wanton to solve crime and protect the innocent? The tights, as Lobo said earlier? What is it? The above average intelligence? Martial Arts?

Why is it that we hold these people on high? How do we say that one person is a "superhero," and that those who try really hard to ensure that our streets are safe (even though in most cases they are not anyways) fall short of being revered is such a fashion? Where is the cut off?

I feel they need to posess a supernatural ability, personally. It is not that I have no respect for Batman, Ironman, or any of the others who were not part of an unfortunate accident that mutated them in one way or another.

Batman decided one day to become Batman. It was a conscious decision he made. Did Reid Richards make the decision to become Mr. Fantastic? No. He was on a space shuttle that was showered by radiation transforming him into the elastic man he is now. He decided to take this Fantastic power (no pun intended, but now that I think of it, N'yuk) he now has to fight crime (Dr. Doom for the most part).

And I ask you . . . why do you think that having superpowers is a good criteria? I don't know if you saw my question, so I'll repost it. If Batman could see in the dark because of some sort of mutant ability, instead of infrared lenses would he be a superhero? He'd have the exact same abilities that he has now. Two people with the exact same abilities--one a superhero, the other not. That seems perfectly absurd to me.

You keep asking what the criteria for being a superhero are. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast definition, but here's what I came up with. To be a superhero, you must--

Have good motives. Stopping criminals doesn't make you a superhero unless you do it for the right reasons.

Have exceptional abilities. I don't have a hard-and-fast definition for exceptional, but I know it when I see it.

Be effective. This is probably pretty self-explanatory.

There are probably other qualifications, but those are the ones I see as important.

Originally posted by Cyclops
Batman decided one day to become Batman. It was a conscious decision he made. Did Reid Richards make the decision to become Mr. Fantastic? No. He was on a space shuttle that was showered by radiation transforming him into the elastic man he is now. He decided to take this Fantastic power (no pun intended, but now that I think of it, N'yuk) he now has to fight crime (Dr. Doom for the most part).

And you're making fun of my post?
First of all Reed Richards doesn't fight crime for a living. He's a scientist and explorer, and it's his personal history with Dr. Doom that brings them into conflict.
Second of all, Richards doesn't have to fight crime or super-villains or whatever because of cosmic radiation. It's his conscience, not his elastic body. How is this not obvious to you?
You seem to think that being a super-hero has to fall into your lap. Why would you value the qualities of a super-hero who didn't work at being one-- someone who was born a mutant or befell a radioactive accident-- more than those of someone who dedicated their life to rising above their human limitations to accomplish deeds equal to those who could do it more easily with super powers?
If you haven't gotten it by now, you probably won't. Gregory already said enough to make the point clear before I found this thread.

Originally posted by Gregory

You keep asking what the criteria for being a superhero are. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast definition, but here's what I came up with. To be a superhero, you must--

Have good motives. Stopping criminals doesn't make you a superhero unless you do it for the right reasons.

Have exceptional abilities. I don't have a hard-and-fast definition for exceptional, but I know it when I see it.

Be effective. This is probably pretty self-explanatory.

There are probably other qualifications, but those are the ones I see as important.

this is the best point so far

No, I am not making fun of anything. I thought we were all having a nice debate. I was actually enjoying discussing this with everyone, and everyone has made valid points.

My standpoint is still just that, mine. If you all think I am dismissing your points then please stop posting here. If you think I am just some punk kid trying to piss you off, then stop posting here. Eventually, this thread will disappear and we will move on with our lives. (by the way, I am not some punk kid)

With that said, I will continue to my rebuttle. (I said butt, n'yuk 😂 ) I do not feel that superheroism (if that is even a word) has to fall into your lap. Look at Batman. He had his parents killed infront of his eyes as a child, fell into the batcave and used that symbol to strike fear into the hearts of those preying on the innocent. If that is not falling into ones lap then I will eat my hat.

I am simply saying what about those who, more or less, hadn't a say in leading the life of a vigilate? Granted, there are those who chose the life of a supervillian, but that still encompasses the title of SUPER.

The supernatural aspect, in my eyes, still dictates the superhero status.

And P.S., can Batman see in the dark with infared vision with his mask off? No, thus that point has no validity.

Originally posted by Gregory
Because of the "super" part of superhero. As Herr Logan says, there's nothing extroidinary about them.

What is so extraordinary about Punisher? Or Ironman? His intelligence? Does that classify Albert Einstine to be a superhero? His technilogical advances help protect people, so is his indirectly a Superhero?

Originally posted by Cyclops

With that said, I will continue to my rebuttle. (I said butt, n'yuk 😂 ) I do not feel that superheroism (if that is even a word) has to fall into your lap. Look at Batman. He had his parents killed infront of his eyes as a child, fell into the batcave and used that symbol to strike fear into the hearts of those preying on the innocent. If that is not falling into ones lap then I will eat my hat.

Wait ... you're using Batman as an example of how superheroism (not a word) doesn't have to fall into your lap? But you've been spending the entire thread arguing that Batman isn't a superhero.

Punisher is a genius with weapon's and hand to hand skill's and easily take's out hero's. Wolverine is a "Superhero" in regaRD'S TO HEALING BUT IN THERE LATEST ENCOUNTER sorry bout that damn cap's lock...anywho

Punisher got scrathed a few time's but really gave wolvie a run for his money, and wolvie has cleared room's full of ninja's and could probably take out a swat team in second's a feat i would expect punisher to also perform.

police and soldier's may have the same motive's but are CLEARLY outclassed.

Remember what I said about the word super(it means more/better than normal, not extraordinary). The word that means extra more than usual is hyper.Thats why bats is a superhero coz he's more athletic,strong, fast,organised, talented than normal. Thats just a technicality but I think relevant.This is a good post though mate.

A rebuttle for Gregory:

Your point being?

I used Batman as an example of how superheroism (thank you for pointing out it is not a word, but I will continue to use it because we all know what I am trying to say) DOES NOT HAVE TO FALL INTO YOU LAP, and by doing so proving that the criterian does not include a near-fatal accident. Look at the X-Men. They were not victim to a horrific accident (for the most part, I know Wolverine) but they are still classed as superheros in my eyes.

Originally posted by Cyclops

I used Batman as an example of how superheroism (thank you for pointing out it is not a word, but I will continue to use it because we all know what I am trying to say) DOES NOT HAVE TO FALL INTO YOU LAP.

I'm trying to understand you, so bear with me.

Batman is an example of how superheroism does not have to fall into your lap, even though he is not a superhero?

Yes. Somebody asked me if "superheroism" has to fall into your lap. I said no. And I used Batman as an example because the life he is leading has everything to do with the death of his parents.

This might kind of ruin everything I was debating for, but that is okay.

First, let me make one thing a little more clear. I like Batman. I have nothing against him. The Batman series, comics, etc, had THE BEST villians. And the story of Batman is very relatable, which is another plus.

One major reason I feel Batman is not a superhero is the short-lived series on WB Batman Beyond. Where would Terry be without the Batsuit? Nowhere. Where would Batman be without his toys? Nowhere.

Take away his technology and Batman is nothing. Take away Spider-Mans technology and where is he? He is without webbing. He still has everything else!

Take away Ironmans technology, he is nothing. Take away Storms technology, she is the same!

Batman could take half of the marvel and DC universe in a hand to hand fight without toy's tho

Originally posted by VENOMfan
Batman could take half of the marvel and DC universe in a hand to hand fight without toy's tho

Maybe. People like Flash, I can see that.

Who the hell is Flash anyways? Run really fast... BOOOO!!!!

well he make's quicksilver look like a senor citizan speed wise

Even so, I hate them both and wish they would die. But they are still Superheroes in my eyes because that have that INBORN extra edge on your average human.

Originally posted by Cyclops

One major reason I feel Batman is not a superhero is the short-lived series on WB Batman Beyond. Where would Terry be without the Batsuit? Nowhere. Where would Batman be without his toys? Nowhere.

It's funny, because that's exactly the reason I don't like that show. I watched several episodes of it, and I constantly found myself thinking, "This is totally wrong. The people who make this show seem to think that Batman is nothing more than some guy in a fancy suit, and that's not true."

Have you read the Knightfall/Knightsend story? In that, Bruce beats a number of very skilled martial artists without using any of his technology. Heck, he defeats the Azbat without using any technology but his nightvision lens.

Ok first of all a Super Hero is different from a Super Human Therefore No The Xmen are not Super human they are Super Heros They are the next step in Human Evelotion which makes them no longer Human Super man is a Super hero not Super human and Eddie Brock is not Super Human he is an ordinary guy with an Alien Suit The Suit is what possess the strength not Eddie brock Eddies strength is not SUPER he just works out a lot. Bat man is not a Super hero he is another guy that has lots and lots of money and entirely too much time on his hands to do all the martial arts training. If I had 30 years with nothing to do but travel the world and learn martial arts would that make me a Super hero not to mention the money which is immessurable and with that kind of money Tiny Tim could be a SUPER HERO if you class Batman as such (thank you for putting Tiny Tim in my head Darth Revan) 😈 😮‍💨 🤘

Originally posted by Darth_Midal

If I had 30 years with nothing to do but travel the world and learn martial arts would that make me a Super hero

If you also became the world's greatest detective, had a genius level intelligence, and fought crime with even a fraction of the Batman's success, then yes. You would be a superhero.

Who the hell is Tiny Tim? Whoever he is, you're wrong. Being a superhero also requires a huge deal of dedication and a very specific mind-set. Especially Batman; we all know how well the Azbat did, and even Nightwing was relieved when he didn't have to be Batman any more.