Is it just me or has capeshit ruined the perception of what an anti-hero is supposed to be?

Is it just me or has capeshit ruined the perception of what an anti-hero is supposed to be?
The whole point of a good anti-hero is that it’s a more self driven and human figure. Pic related is hailed as the poster boy for anti-heroes because he was simply out for his own survival but still had a conscience which convinced him to do the right thing.
That said, every major capeshit anti hero is always
>Either grimdark serious or constanty spouting black humor
>Always has to be the most tragic figure in the room
>The subversion of the hero role within their medium is simply making them a violent sociopath
>Seldom has their own unique unorthodox moral code.
>Always chaotic good with little to no neutral alignment

Attached: C4140806-B92B-402B-8E89-B25B86476553.jpg (840x429, 75.42K)

just play some fighting games user

Okay, I deserved that one

The problem with comics is that they try to pretend certain evil characters who have no morality are anti heroes and justify their crimes.

Another problem is that the characters who'd actually work as anti heroes are kept as villains or not used at all.

I think it also comes to the fact that it’s a desperate attempt to add grey to a black and white dichotomy.
Being selfish is an “evil” trait to cape comics

There are different types of antiheroes, pic related is always killing his enemies. I see no difference, except for his personality and ambition. An antihero is an unconventional hero, either he believes to be a hero using questionable methods, or he doesn't but he has a moral compass that makes him be more good than bad.

You just proved my point, killing or not killing has nothing to do with whether or not you’re an anti hero. Yet capeshit has basically turned the concept of anti-hero into “trigger happy violent hero.”
Plenty of traditional heroes killed people with no problem. In Westerns it was expected, TMWNN was an anti hero because he wasn’t some honorable sheriff but instead a bounty hunter out for his own survival.
Look at Red Hood, he is by all measures a traditional hero, yet considered an anti hero because he kills. Same with a lot of “anti heroes” in comics. Hell, in MARVEL, anti heroes are basically just heroes with mental illness.

I agree with you. I love anti-heroes, the types that might help because of selfish reasons, or the ones that while selfish, have lines they won't cross. But for Hollywood, antihero always means
>pay evil unto evil
type, the revenge-punisher guy who I despise.

Grey morality is intersting, but most comic book and manga writers don't understand it. Either they use 'grey morality ' to justify characters who don't deserve it or make one faction so vile that the other group is justified.

I wouldn't say that being selfish is an evil trait in comics, Batman( though his fans and writers don't seem to notice or care)and a lot of Marvel heroes are varying degrees of selfish

Capeshit is badly written soap-opera garbage in a general sense.

Anything brought up that it does its most likely going to do badly while missing the point of the concept by default.

>make one faction so vile that the other group is justified.
worst approach evah

>capeshit ruined the perception
Trying to find a semblance of morality in capeshit is ridiculous. People like to do the whole "why doesn't Batman do x" type stuff. It is all metanarratives about dissecting pop culture and I hate it. Don't get me wrong, someone could write a good story about ethics and morality when it comes to heroes or anti heroes. But superhero comics don't attract good storytellers. Most writers stumbled into it or maybe see it as a stepping stone. Most writers aren't concerning themselves with those questions. And deconstructive works like Watchmen are mostly enjoyed now for surface level reasons of badassery. Our culture is now geared towards commentary. Ecelebs on twitch and youtube constantly dissecting pop culture, sometimes applying some bullshit they stole from an introductory textbook. We could have cape comics about the morality of heroes, but of course we won't. We will just see the same tired tropes. While people will constantly dissect it.

No, I explained to you how reduced is your concept of an antihero. You said that killing has nothing to do with being an antihero, which I agree, the character doesn't need to kill to be one. But if he does, and he doesn't have any kind of problem with doing it, then he's certainly an antihero. As for their motivations they could be varied, we could regard Red Hood's motivations as selfish because he doesn't give a fuck about the law or methods of other superheroes, he thinks that he has the right to do it and he doesn't need anyone's approbation.

Attached: IMG_20200611_171138.jpg (720x1130, 181.36K)

Pic related is not an anti hero.

He would only be an anti hero compared to the John Wayne movies of the 60s. A character like "the man with no name" was a standard hero during the spaghetti western era.

OP as you can tell from this thread, the general audience (and anons on Zig Forums) are just too stupid to understand what literary terms mean. Zig Forums is struggling with "slice of life". Alanis Morissette is struggling with "ironic". TVTropes is struggling with every literary term ever. Cape comics are no better.

Attached: arturo.jpg (500x500, 56.65K)

>superhero comics don't attract good storytellers

Attached: this.jpg (414x232, 18.98K)

I bet you think Geoff Johns and Mark Waid are some master storytellers.

>Good
>Master
Is your best argument to change someone else's argument to make you seem you're right?

Let's replace the word master with good then? Does it hold true now?

You can't really have a character who keeps getting into scuffles with villains every month for decades by sheer chance.

Are you saying they aren't good? Are you saying there aren't better storytellers than them in comics?

...

I don't know, but they'd be laughed out if they wrote in some non-capeshit in other media or even for some other genre of comics.
>there aren't better storytellers than them in comics?
All comics are not capeshit

Maybe, I haven't read anything from them outside of capeshit, I don't even know if they did something that isn't capeshit. They are not my favourite writers, but they are good in what they do, at least that's what I think. But aren't Alan Moore or Grant Morrison good? They've done capeshit too.

Legit can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing.

Well it's kind of difficult to have a SUPERHERO who is self-driven. That works very well in a western where the setting is oppressive and hard, but if you have a character who is already at the point where they are putting on a costume and running around the city to protect the innocent, there's not much about it you can show to be self-driven about it. Simply by putting on the costume he's already essentially doing the right thing.

On the contrary, I'd say the closest thing in comics to the anti-hero as you describe him would actually be some VILLAINS. Ones like Silver Sable, Elektra, and originally Deathstroke before he was turned more villainous, ones who use their powers and abilities either for self-gain or to provide for their own families instead of a general sense of responsibility to the human race. Ones who are not evil but often find themselves siding against heroes or working for villains in order to meet their goals.

>the character doesn't need to kill to be one. But if he does, and he doesn't have any kind of problem with doing it, then he's certainly an antihero

Killing doesn't disqualify someone from being a hero. Virtually every action movie protagonist kills and they're not all "anti-heroes". Soldiers kill people. Only in capeshit does killing make someone an anti-hero and that's just because capeshit fans are collectively autistic.

How is killing and not having a problem with it morally correct?

Doing capeshit doesn't disqualify them from being competent writers.

Waid and John's body of work disqualify them from being competent writers.

Disqualified by whom? By you?