I used to think superhero comics took themselves too seriously.

The problem isn't the non-seriousness, the problem is the le epic random internet humour the writer uses here. "Awesome facial hair bros", really?

File: 1470798254680.jpg (410KB, 461x920px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 461x920px

>>93431839
>overly-serious 90's

I don't know how you take it seriously when a guy is wearing 3 belts across his chest to hold all 20 of his pouches, while he dual-wields guns and has another strapped to his back, and one cyborg leg, complete with holsters and belts all the way down it, and big spikes on his boots because it looks like Gene Simmons and is thus totally radical

>>93431839
What they did to my boy??Tony was suppposed to be an arrogant Jerk not this cringey manchild.

Also why the fuck Strange cares so much about this shit?

File: awesome facial hair bros.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>93431900
>Tony was suppposed to be an arrogant Jerk

I think that's the point of it, he made Strange very uncomfortable because he can't take no for an answer because it hurts his ego

>>93431887
This, 90's comics were not serious, 00's comics were.

As comics from the 70's show, the problem isn't seriousness, it's when you try to push complex real-world problems and morals into a shared superhero universe that never changes.

Watchmen was literally about this, but as we know really stupid people took entirely the wrong message from it and proceeded to fill superhero comics with murder, rape, politics, real-life wars, sexual metaphor, gray morality, and other joyless shit thinking this made them "mature".

Superheroes, especially ones in a shared, neverending universe, don't have to be "fun". They can take themselves seriously, they can treat their universe like its a real place and not a silly action movie, you can have high-stakes or grit or dark themes, you can even approach some serious subjects. But if you get TOO real it becomes jarring, and superheroes are escapist fantasy. If you're gonna have Superman fight terrorists, you don't want to see him mess up and get innocent hostages killed, you don't want to sympathize with the terrorists, you want to see Superman beat up a bunch of faceless, evil goons and save the day.

>>93432757
>If you're gonna have Superman fight terrorists, you don't want to see him mess up and get innocent hostages killed, you don't want to sympathize with the terrorists, you want to see Superman beat up a bunch of faceless, evil goons and save the day.
I wish more people understood this.

File: JLA Classified #3 - Complex World 03.png (774KB, 946x386px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 946x386px

>>93432757
>>93432854

>>93432757
>Black Manta was a villain that was desperate to help "his people
>Spiderman messed up and killed Gwen when she was kidnapped
>F4 accidentaly destroyed a benevolent machine hive mind

>>93432904
That's retarded but in a good way, I think.

>>93431942
Him craving acknowledgement/praise would be fine if it wasn't done in such a stupid way. To be honest I think just the high five without the shitty dialogue would work.

>>93433167
The Spider-Man example is a good point but I think there's a lot to take into consideration regarding it. Spider-Man was always supposed to be a bit of a subversion of superheroes as a power fantasy, in that there's a consequence to his powers and his doing the right thing, and that he actually develops over time and everything that happens to him sticks with him.

But The Night Gwen Stacy Died was kind of the turning point for all of that. It was a decade into Spider-Man's existence and Gwen Stacy's death had such a massive effect on his life that there's not much you could do to top it. It was the culmination of every theme central to Spider-Man. You have some good stuff after it in the late 80's but overall it was where the character went off the rails and started meandering.


In regards to Manta, even Denny O'Neil agrees that most handling of racial issues in comics back then was not great, especially his own. It was just taking a hot-button issue for the sake of it. I love Green Lantern/Green Arrow, but it's exactly the kind of thing Watchmen was commenting on: you're bringing up a real-world issue that superheroes can't solve, and condemning them for it. It's just counter-intuitive. There were some good moments that worked as power fantasies of them beating up unquestionably bad guys, though.

The FF thing reminds me of Star Trek and TNG, where they encounter a morally complex issue, but it's something that fits thematically in space rather than being a real-world issue with no solution. The resolution is a downer but it makes you think. The FF, like Spider-Man, were never really a classic superhero group to me, they were an intentional subversion in many ways, and also like Spider-Man the longer they go on the more diluted that original intent becomes.

>>93433675

>they were an intentional subversion in many ways

like I was gonna argue with you and be like "Stan was told specifically to rip off the JLA bc team books were popular" but I realized you can make a real argument that having a team that argued and shit was a big subversion at the time

>>93431887
That's not even accurate to 50% of 90s comics. Dumb casual.

>>93433713
>having a team that argued and shit was a big subversion at the time
It definitely was. Mort Weisenger was really butthurt about how popular Marvel got with its more fleshed-out characters and tight continuity, but knew deep down it was what people wanted because Shooter's LoSH was one of their best titles.

Roy Thomas, one of the first Marvel fanboys, has talked endlessly about how Marvel was such a hit with college students and teens because of its characters' personalities more than their adventures themselves.

>>93433675
Gwen Stacy's death was so big it killed the Silver Age. Not much you can do to top an industry changing event.