When I was a kid, I used the incomprehensibility of this to bolster my conviction that DC comics were mostly crap. With most Marvel comics superheroes there was some sort of explanation for their abilities--science, a fluke of science, interdimensionality or extraterrestiality, enhanced abilities through refinement of a "disability", etc.; moreover, Marvel comics heroes were more apt to be marginalized sorts, i.e., Blacks, Jews, cripples, epileptics, lunatics, communists. This may not be entirely accurate, but at least in the '80s and prior, there was some truth to this.
Are you saying that you can wrap your ahead around the whole anti-gravity thing?For me, that's too much. It's like all the hovercrap in the Star Wars universe. They've got all that crap on Tatooine even, where Luke's landspeeder continues to hover even when he puts it in park. Why? And if they can do all that, why can't they figure out an easier way to either manufacture or extract moisture? The anti-gravity tech is unrelated but still, you'd think that if they've got those kinds of mad skilz they'd figure out a way to extract moisture that doesn't involve total commitment and back-breaking labor.
Как муха или пчела. Роль крыльев выполняет плащ. У насекомых не такие крылья, как у птиц, они ими не машут. Крылья крепятся к экзоскелету и его сокращения заставляют крылья вибрировать с высокой частотой. А чтобы муха могла совершать разные кульбиты в воздухе, её крылья могут выгинаться дугой по разному. Супермен это делает с помощью плаща.
Don't most stories have happy endings?
Well-written superhero stories are about real people with real problems - they just happen to have superpowers.
Посмотрите ролик из России, где пьяный мужик выходит из окна 9 этажа, падает в сугроб, встаёт, оттряхивается, и идёт за бутылкой. Без всякого плаща. Круче Бэтмена.
It rather depends on the genre. Noir, for example, tends to favour the ambiguous, the unhappy, the morally bleak. There may be an element of "happy" (yay, they caught the killer!) but the protagonist rarely comes out unscathed (physically, emotionally, morally etc). Take the Maltese Falcon as a typical example: case solved, but the woman is lost, and the treasure worthless. Not particularly "happy". The ending really should follow the tone of the rest of the story or else it will come across as rather jarring.
The latter part of that sentence pretty much excludes it from being about "real people", I'd have thought. I mean, I've yet to meet a "real person" who has superpowers. Have you?
Handwavium is very good. Doubtless generated from the impossitron.It rather depends on the genre. Noir, for example, tends to favour the ambiguous, the unhappy, the morally bleak. There may be an element of "happy" (yay, they caught the killer!) but the protagonist rarely comes out unscathed (physically, emotionally, morally etc). Take the Maltese Falcon as a typical example: case solved, but the woman is lost, and the treasure worthless. Not particularly "happy". The ending really should follow the tone of the rest of the story or else it will come across as rather jarring.
So just because "most" stories have happy endings, it would seem sensible, to me at least, to avoid genres that one considers "usually always have happy endings". There will be exceptions, of course. There are always exceptions.
The latter part of that sentence pretty much excludes it from being about "real people", I'd have thought. I mean, I've yet to meet a "real person" who has superpowers. Have you?
If you mean that they are fundamentally human stories, exploring the human condition, etc, then sure. And a good story in that regard is a good story. The issue then is whether you can get past the conceit, the setting, etc. I know people who just can't handle anything sci-fi, even if literally just the setting. E.g. set Romeo & Juliet in a sci-fi setting and it's a big no-no, even if the language is unaltered from the original.
As for unhappy superhero: try Watchmen by Alan Moore. The graphic novel is slightly different in the end to the movie, slightly more ambiguous, but certainly not "happy ending" stuff.
Joker is good, as well. I haven't seen the sequel yet, but imagine it's about as nihilistic and as uncomfortable as the first.
V for Vendetta - not "happy" but does offer some "hope" for the future.
And then there's The Boys series - which is excellent TV viewing for anyone who wants a dark, cynical, and deeply unsettling view of the superhero genre!
As for how Superman can fly?
Well, not many might know, but he began unable to fly! In his earliest incarnation he could leap over tall buildings, and great distances, but he couldn't actually fly! And the leaping was due to his strength. Seems obvious enough.
Then he began to fly, so they retconned everything. Now it's through the means of hand-wavium particles that are immune to any plot-inconsistency potentiality. Quite possibly due to microtubules.
As it relates to books, I tend to choose mysteries or psychological thrillers, and the occasional sci-fi / fantasy, mainly because they don't always have happy endings. They often have satisfying endings, but not necessarily ''happy.'' Maybe I'm not explaining this correctly. I don't like endings that are unrealistically happy, like superman flies in to save the day, just in time, every time. I suppose it's like spending the day at Disney World, though - none of that is real either, but sometimes, it's nice to escape reality, on occasion. Superhero movies are like that, an escape from reality, and what if there is a magical, superhero out there who can save everyone's day? It's nice to dream about, anyway.
The latter could be an ace ambulance driver, saving the lives of grateful patients every day.
Yes, in a novel one looks for a resolution, which may or may not be entirely "happy". The plot threads have to be brought together and the characters given some kind of end state.
Теват, я знаю таких людей. Муж одной моей знакомой находит бутылку с выпивкой в любом месте, куда бы её не спрятали. Вот это настоящая суперспособность. Правда, у неё есть "побочки" - после того, как он её найдёт и выпьет, он наутро не может найти "вчерашний день".
The point is they are not defined by their superpowers; they're defined by their relationships, their work life their home life. The superpowers tear them away from their real lives, and they expand a lot energy trying to keep their real lives together despite the superpowers.The latter part of that sentence pretty much excludes it from being about "real people", I'd have thought. I mean, I've yet to meet a "real person" who has superpowers. Have you?
The human condition writ large.
+1Well, not many might know, but he began unable to fly! In his earliest incarnation he could leap over tall buildings, and great distances, but he couldn't actually fly! And the leaping was due to his strength. Seems obvious enough.
Then he began to fly, so they retconned everything. Now it's through the means of hand-wavium particles that are immune to any plot-inconsistency potentiality. Quite possibly due to microtubules.
DC stories are very different from Marvel stories.
A brilliant film is "Mystery Men" (already referenced by DaveC!), about a team of superheroes that include Shoveler (he hits people with a shovel), Invisible Boy (turns invisible but only when people aren't looking at him), Blue Raja (he throws cutlery), and the Sphinx (a guru type who spouts aphorisms like "learn to master your doubt or your doubt will master you").
