A. Are the superheroes inspired by westerns and wrestling?

If you look at superheroes, they're basically outlaw vigilantes, like the mythical cowboys, who have hand-to-hand combat with costumes and masks, like in wrestling. Since superheroes were born in America in the 1930s, and at that time cowboy movies and wrestling already existed, were these the inspiration for the basic concept of the superhero or was it something else?

B. Why does everyone wear costumes?

I once read that Superman's suit was based on the one worn by men who, when wearing such a tight suit, would put on a pair of shorts on the outside to avoid scoring (similar today to joggers with tights and shorts on the outside). The mask could be for wrestling, being worn to keep the identity a secret, but why do they all wear them? For some the power is in the costume, like Iron Man, or to use their power more comfortably, like the Flash; but this already seems like an unwritten norm even for those who don't need it. Couldn't they just fight crime with other clothes? Apart from costumes, they could also wear other costumes that had a symbolic function, like a policeman's uniform; practical, like the swimsuit on a swimmer; or protective, like the suits of Formula 1 drivers. What do you think?

C. What motivates superheroes?

It seems like in superhero stories, if you get a power you have to fight crime because yes, without a reason behind it, except in some cases they bother to explain it, like Batman. In the early days of comics, as they were simpler this made sense, but now, doesn't it make these characters a little bit simple? Could that be why they're currently focusing more on villain stories, like Suicide Squad? Being villains don't always have to be morally correct and unrealistically perfect, having more nuance and development, but at the same time glorifying some villains who are outright bad people. Couldn't heroes also be humanized, or is there a reason why they're that way?

D. Why are comics events so confusing?

Events or crossovers in comics are meant to tell big stories that last several years, but to read them you have to have different titles and numbers, some being irrelevant to the overall plot, and others being too brief. Why do they do it that way? Couldn't they make a cohesive, well-structured story, like the first Secret Wars? Also, apart from events and crossovers, within the same character's stories, why do they make so many comics with different titles, like Spider-Man? Why didn't they put all their comics into one collection under the same numbering? I once read what was done because the price of the No 1 Superman was so expensive and they wanted more and more No 1 comics, was that it?

E. Why are superheroes so popular?

At first the comics were popular because of the war, but after that they lost popularity, either because they were more expensive or they became less violent to suit the times. So how did they survive for so long? Was it because they started creating series and movies about them, or is the rise of superheroes something more recent because of Marvel movies and modern special effects? If so, just as there used to be a lot of Wild West movies but now we only remember the classics, is the same thing happening to the superhero genre now? Which ones will become classics?

F. Are superheroes affected by scientific advances and the worldview we have?

The twentieth century was a time of great discoveries and inventions, which inspired the imagination of comic book writers and their characters. Hence we have superheroes who got their powers almost by accident, just as then it seemed that every day someone discovered something new that could change the world: penicillin, atomic energy, genetics, the internet, etc. But nowadays, as we know the limitations of these sciences better, having normalised them in our daily lives, things like someone getting stung by a radioactive spider no longer seem so mysterious, and things like aliens and magic seem to be all-pervasive. What discoveries might inspire new characters? Would it be better to ignore science fiction a bit and adapt them more to reality, as with The Batman movie? Aside from looking forward to the future, some see it as a worry. How does this affect superheroes? Does it make them no longer seem as interesting or does it cause the new authors to change the way the stories are told? Would it be better to continue the same characters as always, or would they have to be replaced by others? Could they end up doing the same thing as Marvel did with their Ultimate universe, or what recently caught the attention of fans of DC's Absolute universe? Is this the future of comics? Always creating reboots of the same heroes as always, but updating them to the times? What do fans think of this?

Every hero's doomsday would basically be that villain who makes the hero go to his physical and emotional limit which is genuinely a danger.

I've been interested in movie adaptations of comic books since I saw Blade when I was like 7 or 8. I have watched most of the movies and most of the TV shows (aside from cartoons, I'm working on it). At 31 years old I started reading comics on marvel universe. I've started Deadpool, Dracula, Uncanny X-Men, DareDevil, Fantastic Four, and Venom.

Now, with X-men specifically, SHOULD I start from the beginning? Should I start with a better story run than the first issue?

Also, with Blade, do I have to start with Dracula (it's what MU suggested I start with)?

It feels like the way Knull was presented in the movie Venom: The Last Dance was on a whole other level compared to any character that appeared in any marvel/dc movie before, the quality and the angles and how he appeared on the throne, the slow movements, and how he talked felt like some kind of blizzard cinematic trailer (and better than that) which was unlike what we have seen in live action movies before, and he appeared so menacing and badass like every time he was shown onscreen looking down on the throne and his hair covering his face and the dynamic speech, it gave the feeling that everyone before him is nothing to him

and also to add to that this is possibly the first superhero movie where the protagonist (eddie brock) never met the villain (even though the symbiote venom himself already knew him) which added to that whole mystery/epic presentation

https://preview.redd.it/9yo9safwkl4e1.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45b797aefdc4132f0afa64229fdba66d8f3923c1

Artist: https://x.com/too3pok6412/

Source: https://x.com/too3pok6412/status/1778777208749973966

Hi, I’ve been on a few years break of not having much interest in superheroes and comics, so I’m a little behind on media. Since I’m a girl I’m always usually more interested in the female characters. I was wondering at this time does Marvel have any female characters that are really popular? Like DC Comics has Wonder Woman and Harley Quinn?

Way back when, I think Black Widow was the only girl with any kind of popularity. My personal favorite has been Scarlet Witch since Wanda Vision. Has Scarlet Witch risen in popularity? She seems like she’s getting more merchandise. Is there a good “duo” of popular female Marvel characters?

Where is this from?

https://preview.redd.it/uejagjkv6k4e1.png?width=632&format=png&auto=webp&s=c8962b9af194788ea373ec6775699e4c87bb9915

I'm not even a member of r/eatityoufuckingcoward but this was a direct screen shot from my feed. Blursed algorithm.

(Also, who do you prefer her drawn by?)

I'm kinda toying around with my own take on an amalgam universe which is less "every character from both worlds is combine" and more "heroes and villains from both worlds exist simultaneously, altering eachother's histories" namely things like Batman adopting one of the spider-teens instead of Robin, Superman viewing Captain America as a role model, and characters from DC taking up the roles of marvel heroes or villains and vice versa,(for example James Cradic gaining the spirit of Vengeance to become "The Gentleman Ghost Rider")

But one of the ideas I have for someone who is a combination two characters, is a version of Lex and Tony. Since both a Uber rich tech geniuses who use armor to replicate super powers, and have a bit of a narcissistic streak, it's a pretty natural combination.

Im just not sure where exactly the Tony ends and Lex begins, if that makes sense. I know esthetically he'd be more like lex, but have the backstory of Ironman 1 Tony (maybe with a kryptonite element to the arc reactor thing.)

Also not sure which name is better, "Alexander 'Lex' stark" or "Antony 'Tony' Luther"

Any thoughts or ideas are appreciated

Does anyone else hope that we get Omega Red in the MCU? I feel like he’s such an underrated villain. Even if it were for one movie, I feel like Red deserves some screen time/make his debut already

People say RDJ, Chrisx2 and Hugh etc “owes” these characters and they can’t see anyone else playing and acting like what they did. Personally I think people just got too attached to them because they grew up watching them and can’t see others doing it.

The only one I can’t really who think is Deadpool as Ryan, I don’t know enough actors who can match his craziness and comedy and the vibe he gives

That's it, that's the post. To each their own, obviously, but I'm surprised to see so many people disliking it. I love the jacket, I like the fact that he's actually really short for once, I like the bigass belt buckle.