Re: Comics = super heroes

"Michael Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> What with the huge discussion on continuity and some of the comments, it
> struck me as kind of strange that there is all this discussion about
> non-superhero comics and their value etc.
> 
> I almost get the sense that some people are "apologising" for the fact that
> they read superhero stuff and only the non-SH stuff is "real literature"
> (obviously this is a generalisation from me)
> 
> I just want to say that I read comics becuase of super heroes. Short and
> sweet. And that's why I'm in the newsgroup.

I was thinking the other day that, for a long time, comics were the
only place where super-heroes can reasonably exist. The costumes look
arguably cheesy on TV or in movies (thus they get changed a lot), and
the adventures generally take the characters places and have them do
things that cannot be reasonably reproduced on screen (for a
reasonable budget, anyway).

Even today, when the technology is there, we have to settle for a
Spider-Man movie once every couple years, at best.  No where near the
frequency of a comic.

On the other hand, other genres can exist outside comics. Fantasy,
sci-fi, crime, westerns, etc are all easily accessable outside of
comics, where they "work" just as well.  Only the really way-out
concepts of some indy comics (Bone, Cerebus, My Monkey's Name is
Jennifer) are hard to replicate in other media, but then these are not
really concepts that appeal to the masses (I mean no disrespect).

As much as comics might consider super-heroes a "necessary evil", I
think they are what are keeping the medium alive, and will continue to
do so.