{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "I remember once reading a critic say that movie heroes can be roughly divided into three eras: The Moral Hero, The Cool Hero,...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/128808828843/", "html": "

raggedjackscarlet:

\n
\n

I remember once reading a critic say that movie heroes can be roughly divided into three eras: The Moral Hero, The Cool Hero, and the Superhero.

\n

The Moral Hero is a person you might one day be, like Yul Brynner\u2019s character at the beginning of the Magnificent Seven\u2013 no special abilities, no special history, just a strong sense of justice, and a gun.

\n

The Cool Hero is a person you will probably never be, like Indiana Jones or MacGuyver. You could develop their outlandish skill sets, but its highly highly unlikely.

\n

The Superhero is a person you will NEVER be. self-explanatory. superpowers don\u2019t exist in the real world.

\n

In the olden days of the Moral Hero, the audience was meant to admire the Hero for his remarkable goodness. In the days of the Cool Hero, we\u2019re meant to admire his competence and charisma. But the Superhero\u2026.

\n

The Superhero isn\u2019t\u2026 virtuous. The Superhero represents an attempt to replicate the feeling of admiration for virtue by stitching together utilitarian good and power fantasies. Hero as ubermensch who conveniently only hurts bad people.

\n

The Superhero\u2019s virtue is weirdly fake, like Sherlock Holmes\u2019 intelligence.

\n

I wont spoil anything, but the sacrifice that James Cagney\u2019s character makes at the end of Angles With Dirty Faces puts Tony Stark flying into the chitauri portal to shame.

\n

EDIT:

\n

I think this issue is part of what motivates the \u201cRemember when Superman was a lovable all-american goofball??\u201d sentiment

\n
"}