Seaguy

[Ajax]

Don't know if this series has been discussed or not, but here goes nothing. For the past month or so my friend has been raving about Seaguy and I was a bit unsure of whether I wanted to read it or not. Grant Morrison has done some great comics, but alot of times, especially with his miniseries, I feel like I'm missing something. That it is over my head or however you want to describe it. Not that that is a bad thing, intelligent comics are a good thing, but I don't know. I'm off point anyways. So I read the first issue and got that sinking feeling again, like "here we go". Then I finished the mini series and was a bit thrown. What just happened? So I rushed off to wiki and found this quote from an interview.

"I had the idea to develop Seaguy into a weapon I could use to fight back against the trendy and unconvincing 'bad-arse' cynicism of current comics, most of which are produced by the most un-'bad-arse' men you can possibly imagine".

Finally the series made sense, underneath the odd surreal aspect of the world, this was a protest comic if you will. So my first thought was, is he right? So that is my question, is Grant Morrison right? Are we unable to identify with a character who does the superhero gig just cause he feels it is the right thing to do? Is that why Batman and Spiderman resonate so strongly while Superman rubs alot of people the wrong way (i've heard alot of people go 'I don't like Superman cause he is too goody goody)?

[BentonGrey]

Not I.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a moderately complicated hero, but the true measure of heroism is selflessness.  Batman started doing what he does for vengeance, but he continues to do it because, to him, life is precious and worth preserving...even lives like those of Two Face, Mad Hatter, Mr. Freeze, and other wack jobs..  I'm, of course, speaking of an interpretation of the character rather than the current trend.  I thought "Justice" captured that rather well, if not with incredible depth.

[tommyboy]

For me, personally, Seaguy is more of a "miss" than a "hit".
I can tell that there is symbolism in there, and some sort of commentary, and that probably thought has been put into it.
But I don't know what the symbolism errr.... symbolizes, I don't quite understand the commentary, and whatever is going on I don't "get" it.
I'm generally a appreciator of Morrison's work. Final Crisis, All Star Supeman, his Batman stuff, all good to great, in my book.
But Seaguy does nothing for me.
Is it parody? Allegorical? I dunno. I'm sort of hoping someone can explain it to me so I can like it more than I do now.

[Tomato]

I think with me personally, it's never been about character flaws or tragedy as much as it is just... Superman is often just overpowered. Like, it's one thing that Superman can fly and move mountains or whatever, because often the villains he fights can match him or balance him in some way. But you look at Superman's "nth level intelligence" absurdity... In case anyone doesn't know, Superman can use junkyard metal to build atomic bombs, disintigrator rays, weapon scanners, whatever. Granted, it's an ability that doesn't come up often, but it does kind of negate the "Lex has a bot capable of destroying Superman" thing with me because guess what? Superman can just make a better robot in five minutes, have it defeat Lex, then sit around eating bon bons the rest of the day.

Besides, I think that Spiderman, who is still Marvel's number one character, is probably the furthest away from the dark brooding bad-whatever type as Marvel has sans Steve.

[tommyboy]

I actually really like the way Superman has been written for the past few years.
He comes across as an adult in a world of children. His morality, compassion and restraint serve as examples to other characters, (whereas he often used to be little more than a "do-gooder" cipher in the comics of the 50-80's).
Being old and cynical, I don't care how powerful (or not) any comic character is, they are never in any danger (even when they die they come back), so Superman's Uberosity no longer bugs me, but his restraint appeals greatly. He could punch through people or fry them, and were he Wolverine, he would, because Wolverine is the baddest bad-bottom of them all*.

*except for Son of Wolverine, and Wolverine Girl.
But no, like a parent or teacher, Clark restrains the naughty children, and almost never loses his temper with beings he can never have a fair fight with. He's not driven by guilt, or shaped by tragedy, or just a psychopath with teh klwas. He's a good man who wants to do what's right, in a world mainly full of people who fail to do this. We cannot aspire to his powers, but we can aspire to his restraint and compassion, his kindness and understanding of what's right.

[BentonGrey]

I actually really like the way Superman has been written for the past few years.
He comes across as an adult in a world of children. His morality, compassion and restraint serve as examples to other characters, (whereas he often used to be little more than a "do-gooder" cipher in the comics of the 50-80's).
Being old and cynical, I don't care how powerful (or not) any comic character is, they are never in any danger (even when they die they come back), so Superman's Uberosity no longer bugs me, but his restraint appeals greatly. He could punch through people or fry them, and were he Wolverine, he would, because Wolverine is the baddest bad-bottom of them all*.

*except for Son of Wolverine, and Wolverine Girl.
But no, like a parent or teacher, Clark restrains the naughty children, and almost never loses his temper with beings he can never have a fair fight with. He's not driven by guilt, or shaped by tragedy, or just a psychopath with teh klwas. He's a good man who wants to do what's right, in a world mainly full of people who fail to do this. We cannot aspire to his powers, but we can aspire to his restraint and compassion, his kindness and understanding of what's right.

I like the way you see Superman Tommy.

[daglob]

THAT'S the Ultimate Superman.

[jtharris86]

I actually really like the way Superman has been written for the past few years.
He comes across as an adult in a world of children. His morality, compassion and restraint serve as examples to other characters, (whereas he often used to be little more than a "do-gooder" cipher in the comics of the 50-80's).
Being old and cynical, I don't care how powerful (or not) any comic character is, they are never in any danger (even when they die they come back), so Superman's Uberosity no longer bugs me, but his restraint appeals greatly. He could punch through people or fry them, and were he Wolverine, he would, because Wolverine is the baddest bad-bottom of them all*.

*except for Son of Wolverine, and Wolverine Girl.
But no, like a parent or teacher, Clark restrains the naughty children, and almost never loses his temper with beings he can never have a fair fight with. He's not driven by guilt, or shaped by tragedy, or just a psychopath with teh klwas. He's a good man who wants to do what's right, in a world mainly full of people who fail to do this. We cannot aspire to his powers, but we can aspire to his restraint and compassion, his kindness and understanding of what's right.

That touched me. I never heard Superman talked about so highly. FOR THE LOVE OF SUPERMAN 

[Tomato]

... curses, foiled again *vanishes*

But no, seriously... that's an awesome perspective tommy.

[DrMike2000]

Very nicely said, Tommy.

I've heard the "Superman's too powerful to challenge" argument before, and never really got it. He has incredibly well defined powers, unlike, say Dr. Strange, Johnny Thunder, Dr. Fate, Zatanna etc. Yes, they do have large numbers attached, but its easy to make up large counter-numbers.

As for Seaguy...

I've always taken the charcter to be one of us, ie a denizen of a comfortable developed country. He's really only interested in being a superhero to impress a girl. There is no definable supervillain evil in the world, that was all a few generations back. But there is a more pervasive insidious form of evil around.

Lets face it, none of us will get to fight Hitler like our (great-)grandparents maybe did. Wars are now fought over resources rather than ideology, and since both sides often have more to lose than they used to, ie more comfortable entertainment rich lives, war is being replaced with more subtle forms of domination - why take over a country when you can get them hooked on your products or bidding for cheap labour?
This is very much the world Seaguy finds himself in, and its hard to be a classic hero there - his quests etc. seem kind of stupid and he ends up just looking a bit dumb (eg killing his pet/best pal) rather than heroic. There is evil in his world, but its masquerading as everyone's buddy - Mickey Eye.

Did Morrison succeed in his "anti-hardcase"  attempt with Seaguy? I dunno. I kind of like the series but it ultimately feels a bit flat and silly at times. Seaguy himself doesn't work as an alternative to the bad-arse hero because he's always a bit lost, charmingly naive at best. Morssions's done better wortk than this, and I think struck a much bigger blow to the anti-hero meme with his portrayal of Superman in JLA, All-Star Superman and Final Crisis.

[lugaru]

I agree that Seaguy is not so much of an anti-tough guy hero as he is just a vehicle for weird and symbolic adventures with a mild superheroic slant.

As for Wolvie I always find it funny how nobody really gets the character... they always consider him a symptom of how new comics are not as good as the ones they grew up with but Wolvie is a total pulp hero to the bone, that is why he does not even bother with many superhero conventions like secret identity or wearing a costume half the time. Instead it is about dropping him into exotic locations and having him fight disposable henchmen. Same goes for the punisher, he is more like The Shadow than Superman.

[daglob]

It's not really Wolverine (who was once a GREAT character) that is the problem, it is the attempts at duplicating without "duplicating" him that are the real problem. Years ago, I heard some elementary school kids discussing Wolverine, and the thing they thought was the best was that he would kill anyone who gave him trouble (this is not exactly how they put it, but it is the essence). There was much talk about how "bad" he was, and what he did to people he didn't like. They saw him as a vengence machine for anyone who gave him trouble.

I'm afraid that too many writers today may see him the same way.

[tommyboy]

Without wishing to further derail the thread into "why I hate Wolverine", the differences between him and most other superheroes are profound.
Let's think about him for a moment. He has an unbreakable, indestructible skeleton, and a healing factor which seems to instantaneously repair any tissue damage sustained. Just with those two he should win pretty much any fight he gets into. Add in that he's trained as a ninja, a samurai, a special ops fighter and is supposedly capable of "berzerker" style roughhousing, and you have someone who can win almost any fight, without needing a weapon. And yet he draws his claws. He draws them all the freaking time. He doesn't need to, but he does. Of the hundreds of Wolverine comics, of the thousands of appearances, has he ever NOT used the maximum force he is capable of? Has he ever stopped short of "snikt"? I'm sure there must have been some times, but I'll wager that they are a miniscule minority by a huge margin.
No, Wolverine is the antithesis of the restraint and compassion that Superman represents. Both are arguably childish or adolescent power fantasies. But one posits that you always use only the minimum of force you need to resolve conflict, that even the worst villains are still lives worth preserving, and hopes for the possibility of redemption in even the most repetitive recidivist. And the other suggests that you use the claws even when, (especially when), you don't need them. That other human beings are just "disposable henchmen" to be eviscerated, decapitated killed and maimed. Guess which is which.
Without going all Wertham on Marvel's bottom, and claiming Wolverine is responsible for the breakdown of civilization, I would argue that his prominence is not a sign of a healthy mindset in the industry, or more correctly, in the industry's customers. After all, they only give us what sells. And if what sells is Freddy Kruger, is the blame with them or us?
Desperately trying to tie my Wolvie-hate into the actual topic, if Seaguy is supposed to be an alternative or even an antidote to the "bad-bottom" school of thought in comics, then I suppose it must be something of which I am in favour. I guess this thread has made me like Seaguy a little more, after all.

[Tomato]

I guess I see Wolverine differently then... to me, what is often most interesting about the character is when he's trying to control his own nature. Wolverine is a character who not only has this animalistic sense of morality, that berserker rage that builds within him, but has also been trained repeatedly to use maximum force against any and every opponent. And yet, he denies that rage, that training, and continually tries to push himself to do the right thing. Now, granted, his idea of the right thing is a bit warped in comparison to Superman's, but for a man who has been screwed over time and again, the fact that he's still trying to do what's right is most fascinating to me. That is what separates him from characters like Lobo, Punisher, or Rorschach.

However, I think the problem is not Wolverine himself, but the idea that EVERYONE must now be Wolverine. It's one thing for Wolverine to be amongst Cyclops, Storm, Colossus, etc. and go "we should just kill Magneto, that will save more lives in the long run." because he can be overruled and told "The X-men don't kill. Period." or if even if he's on his own because he's still just one guy. It's a whole different thing when CYCLOPS is ORDERING him to kill people. Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy X-force, but the idea that Cyclops is telling Wolverine to kill things bothers me more then a little bit

[Ajax]

I think the anti-hero is only one aspect of what Grant Morrison is trying to get at. The question he is asking is "why do we need our heroes to be motivated by tragedy to do what they do?" Spiderman wouldn't be the Spiderman we know and love if Uncle Ben wasn't murdered. If he had stopped the crook or if the crook went a different direction, he probably would have continued to pursue celebrity. The same for Batman, if his parents weren't killed in front of him by crime he would probably have been the empty billionaire he pretends to be to protect his identity. Even years after the initial incident that sparks their decisions to become crime fighters their motivation is still the same. It's the single event that determines every decision they make.

The only hero I can think of who doesn't fall into this category is Superman, he does what he does cause he feels it is the right thing to do. The fact that he was sent from Krypton just before it exploded is irrelevant to his choice to be a hero. It just explains how he is able to do all the things he is able to do. I think Grant Morrison arrived at this same conclusion while working on All Star Superman, probably happened when someone came up to him and goes "Normally I don't like Superman cause he is goody goody, but you made him a great read. I mean usually I like [insert tragic/anti-hero here]."

Beyond the tragic hero you have heroes who do what they do out of duty. Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and more than I care to mention, fall under this category.

Wolverine is a product of society. I mean this as both in character, where he went through the Weapon X program and the tastes of the readers. Though to say he is anything new would be a bit of a lie. Like previously mentioned, he is a classic pulp hero. The Spider and The Shadow would mow through dozens of enemies without a single thought. John Carter of Mars was the same way, he basically killed anything that got in his way. As for the kids thing, Wolverine is a good guy as far as they are concerned, the concept of an anti-hero is beyond them. So by definition most anyone he fights is a bad guy. Killing the bad guy is considered okay to them because hey they are the villain. How many Disney movies end with the villain being killed? They might not show the villain dying, but they make it clear that he/she/it has died and will never bother the heroes again.

[Podmark]

Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy X-force, but the idea that Cyclops is telling Wolverine to kill things bothers me more then a little bit

Well it's supposed to.