Talk:Superhero/Archive 2

message: I'm a bit concerned about the obvious bias against the Batman TV show of the 1960s. Wikipedia is supposed to be a bit more neutral in its opinions. Who exactly are "many comic book experts?" Do they have PhDs in Comicology? I have been reading comic books since the early 60s, so I'd consider myself an "expert" (whatever that is) and the show certainly didn't give me a negative impression of superheroes at all. Quite the opposite actually. I think the section should be rewritten.Andacar 22:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias Question

message: Thanks for the change. I like the new version much better! Andacar 22:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: ----
Under Struggles of the 1990s it is suggested that Jim Lee created Bishop of the X-Men as an anti-hero. While it is true that Bishop fits that mold, he was actually created by Whilce Portacio and John Byrne, not Jim Lee. That part of the article should probably be re-worded. --PW 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop 

message: I find sections 1, 2, and 3 are the least good. Too long and not very informative. Many "characteristics of superheroes" are shared with plain fictional "heroes" like Indiana Jones or Zorro or Sherlock Holmes. 
* Wouldn't it be interesting to explain how these traits appeared as a result of companies copying each other's successes (Darwinian evolution), or the use of a medium where "colorful" outfits are the norm, or a medium aimed at a young audience? Superheroes need be iconic because of the serialized medium (they must be recognized immediately). They must also be iconic because of the fancy names: when you are Batman, everything about you must be batty: looks, dwelling, etc. However, like with pro wrestlers, these highly distinctive looks are just a marketing gimmick and all superheroes have the same moves. They are strong, smart. They all fly, perhaps with a web or jetboots. They all send powerful rays or energy bursts (but each hero has his own color). 
* We should underline better that the archenemies are negative versions of the heroes. What's the difference between the Frightful Four, the Red Ghost and his super-apes, and the Super-Skrull? Answer: they are all mirror images of the FF. PhS 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions for cleaning up

message: *At the excellent suggestion of User:PhS, I added that a supervillain is often the dark twin of a superhero and that superheroes often employ themes and motifs. Because Batman was the best example of a "theme" superhero but was already mentioned several times in the common traits section, I used other examples for the headquarters and motivation blurbs.
*Put the "other general characteristics" back in the common traits section. I just think it flows better. Any arguments?
*Replaced space opera with more general science fiction to describe Green Lantern and X-Men. Only on some occasions do X-Men comics resemble space operas (Phoenix Saga ect.)
*Put Iron Man’s costume in with functional superhero costumes; the entry on Cable, Image Comics characters is more about style and time period than function.
*Transferred mention of Super Dupont to comedic superhero section, eliminated Cerebus. Comedic, yes but is he really a superhero?
*Re-added reference to Gladiator as a recent discovery. Otherwise, it seems as if the novel was incredibly influential to comic book creators from 1940s until the 1980s, which, as far as I understand, it was not.
*Got rid of Rorschach as a very popular character in the beginning of the 1990s. I’m not sure that was true. Watchmen was an acclaimed series but was Rorschach in particular such a star? If he was, then I think we would have seen a lot more marketing. Also, I can’t draw a direct link from Rorschach to such heavily commercial characters as Cable and Venom. 
*Eliminated double mentions of Spawn’s popularity
*Eliminated reference to Fatal Attractions. Is that storyline really on par with the Death of Superman and Knightfall in terms of media attention and change to a classic character?
*Changed “characters of color” back to “non-Caucasian characters.” I’m not an expert on the term “person of color” but I’ve never heard it applied to Asians and Native Americans.
*Eliminated double mentions of Black Panther.
*Clarified Yellow Claw entry and Red Wolf entries. Got rid of needless mention of Jimmy Woo. Can anyone with more knowledge of him write a Red Wolf (comics) article, even just a stub? 
*Put links to sites about Red Wolf and Yellow Claw next to mention of them in article
*Changed sexual orientation characters to gay characters because no transgendered, bisexual or other minority superheroes were mentioned (I'm not aware of any)
-Rorschach567
ME GUSTARIA QUE MENCIONARAN LAS CONSECUENCIAS QUE TRAE EL ELIMINAR UN SUPERHEROE QUE DEJA Y TIENE PRESENCIA ENTRE LOS FANS DEL MUNDO DELOS COMICS ,POR EJEMPLO LA MUERTE DE  JEAN GREY,EN LA SAGA DE END SONG  PHOENIX  ,ES MUY LAMENTABEL QUE ELLA LA HAYAN SACRIFICADO ,SIN MAS ,POR UN PERSONAJE APARENTE MENTE MENOR Y SIENDO QUE ELLA SIEMPRE A REPRESENTADO UNA DIFERENCIA ENTER LOS XMEN SIEMPRE Y AHORA , BUENO ES TODO
::I personally still contest including Spider-Man as a divergent current character example.  His popularity as a very human superhero has been tremendously influential in deepening the character type and having him labelled an apparent anamoly belittles that influence.  In addition, Adam Strange shouldn't be listed.  He's more a variation of Buck Rogers than a superhero.--kchishol1970 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  10/16/05 changes