|
|
#11
03-31-2010, 08:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
So I'm at the Wikipedia List of Superheroes and Villains Without Superpowers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ut_superpowers And a few of these entries don't really seem like "superheroes" per se. Just being a protagonist in a universe that defies the normal laws of physics doesn't seem like justification for the "superhero" moniker, if you ask me. Here is my list of those on that page that don't qualify for the title, in my opinion. Discuss. While we're at it... PNQ: How do you define "superhero?" James Bond. What, is he supposed to have superseduction powers or something? Lara Croft. Seriously? Just being an "adventure archaeologist" (as TV Tropes calls them) doesn't mean you're a "superhero." Ditto for Indiana Jones. Sherlock Holmes. Oh, come on. You could make arguments for Zorro (who is also on this list), but Sherlock Holmes? MacGyver. Awesome human being, but not a superhero. Kim Possible. Well, this is a sticky widget. Yes, she's basically James Bond crossed with Lara Croft, but she does have a bona fide "rogue's gallery" which is a necessary component for the title. In fact, if she had a "secret identity" I'd be a lot more in favor of granting her the title.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further. 
|
|
|
Threaded Mode